The issue in the motion is about further powers, not who is represented in delegations. That is a different issue about personnel.
As has been proved in previous debates, there is no need for additional power to be devolved in order for the Scottish Government and wider civic society to tell the global community our very good story, and to tell it to
“play a leading role ... to match ... Scotland’s example in making the transition to a low-carbon economy.”
If anything is getting in the way of that, it is the complex issue of challenging targets that have not been met in the first three years, as well as the high ambition that needs to be turned into action with more proposals and policies. I acknowledge that that is difficult—it would be difficult for any party—but we must focus on that.
Although the Scottish Government insists that we are on track, concern is being voiced about the cumulative effect of the Scottish Government’s having missed the first three annual targets. That is a significant problem because it is eating into the small room for error in the overall goal of hitting the two milestone targets in 2020 and 2050.
As I understand it, the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere is a major environmental concern and needs to be compensated for. It should be recognised that all political parties supported the five Stop Climate Chaos asks, which the Scottish Government has implemented in response to the missing of the third annual target. Although those are small steps, they are certainly in the right direction.
However, the annual targets become much larger year on year, which will make them more difficult to achieve, especially taking into account the shortfall from the three previous years. There is no doubt that the step change that is needed in order to make the shift to a low-carbon economy sufficiently quickly is challenging for the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and it should be acknowledged that it would be challenging for any political party in power.
Earlier today, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee took evidence on the second report on proposals and policies. An example of an area in which ambition needs to become action and proposals need to become policies is that of our peatlands, which the committee discussed this morning. Evidence shows the complexities involved in shifting from proposals to policies and how hard that is to do. In “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting our Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027. The Second Report on Proposals and Policies”—RPP2—the Scottish Government has committed to restoring peatlands, which is significant, but no tangible plan has yet materialised. The minister has pointed to the difficulties that are associated with the fact that the science is developing, which gives us real problems in moving forward, but it is important that a plan to address peatland restoration, to which a significant amount—£15 million—has been allocated for the next three budgets, can be put into action.
I very much welcome this debate. Scotland is seen on the international stage as a country that is in the lead. Indeed, as a witness at this morning’s meeting of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee said, it is the leader of the posse of those who are in the lead. The video address by our minister, Paul Wheelhouse, on Scotland’s climate change actions and the world-leading greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, which was hosted on the climate group’s website during the summit, is no vanity production, and I hope that there will be cross-party support for ensuring that Scotland plays a full part in that organisation and that there is no more carping or misinformation about it.
Some of the specific short-term things that I want to talk about have been covered by the actions that have been taken in Scotland. For a start, I want to mention the aviation and shipping emissions targets that, unlike most other countries—including the UK—Scotland has put in place. The use of cleaner diesel has been agreed by the International Maritime Organization, but certain cruise liner ports such as Invergordon that receive many such ships are concerned that the agreement will make things more expensive for cruise liners. My great concern is that cruise liners will use dirty diesel in those parts of the world where they can still do so and where people are not meeting the terms of the IMO agreement, which the EU, too, has agreed to. I want our voice to be heard on the international stage to ensure that ships use cleaner diesel wherever they are, not just in our waters.
With regard to the peat plan, I believe that the IPCC has default values that allow us to measure the effect on our climate output and, indeed, to give it a retrospective value. In that case, I hope that we can use the money in the budget for this year to the full before it is used up, and I hope that we will get clarity on that from the minister before we finish today.
A second pan-European point is one that I raised at the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee this morning. Charging points for electric cars have different nozzles in each country. It is unbelievable that manufacturers cannot get that together. I will look for our Government and the European Parliament’s environment committee to get together and ensure that that does not happen. It means that people who travel from one country to another cannot easily use the electricity charging points.
I have to say some things about the amendments. We talk about the Scottish Government’s position being a leading one. That is made more difficult by the House of Lords amendment to the Energy Bill that removed the Scottish Parliament’s powers in respect of renewables obligations. That amendment was not debated on the floor of the House of Commons, and there was no consultation with the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament prior to its being tabled. When challenged in the House of Commons, the minister and the Labour front bench did not have any reasonable explanation as to why that happened in such an underhand manner. That undermines Scotland’s ability to deliver on our climate targets.
Finally, I suggest, as the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has, that we need to have all the committees of the Parliament and all the ministers taking responsibility. I realise that, when we share that, we also have to look at the budgets of other departments, such as health and transport, to help us to deliver. I hope that, in the budget that is coming up, we will see that happening.
Meanwhile, I very much welcome this debate.
16:16
I thank the minister for that clarification.
WWF has warned that missing our targets only makes the overall target harder to achieve, with room for only the smallest margin of error, so further action is required on both policy and implementation.
Tackling energy efficiency in housing can play a key part in reducing our carbon footprint, as can further investment in technologies that make homes more eco-friendly and, to reduce fuel poverty, cost effective. In the housing supply debate yesterday, I gave a perfect example of that when I mentioned passive houses, which are extremely fuel efficient and low cost to run. They are expensive to manufacture and build, but their benefits are far reaching. The connection between poverty, fuel poverty and poor housing is unavoidable. I am sure that all members across the chamber today will agree that tackling fuel poverty must be a priority of the whole chamber.
In its written submission to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, Sustrans emphasised the role that getting more people on to public transport can play. The announcements that were made by the Minister for Transport and Veterans earlier this year were ambitious, even if the timescales were long term. The planned move to electric vehicles is also ambitious and requires substantial investment from Government as well as business.
More use of our canals and ports would help to reduce our carbon footprint but, again, that would require substantial infrastructure investment.
The number of cycling accidents has increased in recent years, and Sustrans warns that that is in part down to the inadequate provision of safe cycling routes. I know of cycling routes in my area that run for only 10m before they disappear. If we want people to get out of cars in order to reduce carbon emissions and encourage healthy lifestyles, we must work together to make cycling more appealing and safe.
16:36
The point has been made—we are deliberately pushing in the motion not for independence but for the same rights that other national Governments take for granted. At present there is no power for the Scottish Government to have an automatic right to attend these conferences, so we are looking for some support in that respect.
I appreciate that Claudia Beamish is not willing to give that support today, but international bodies such as the climate action network, the International Trade Union Confederation, Friends of the Earth and other stakeholders with whom members will be familiar want Scotland to have a voice in those audiences and to be able to influence other countries to allow them to take forward examples such as our legislative framework and approach to statutory targets. Why Opposition parties, with the exception of the Green Party and the independent members, will not acknowledge that obvious point is a mystery to me, but I will leave that point there for now.
I would be happy to meet Alison Johnstone to discuss the points that she raised about the decarbonisation of pension fund investments. I will be in touch about that.
We remain on track to achieve our 42 per cent emissions reduction by 2020. Notwithstanding the points that have been made, the reality is that our target in absolute tonnage terms is now considerably more than 42 per cent, but we remain on target to achieve the 42 per cent, and to achieve our targets of generating the equivalent of 50 per cent of electricity demand from renewables by 2015 and reducing energy consumption by 12 per cent by 2020. We have increased forestry planting rates to about 16 million trees per year, and we aim to achieve 20 million trees per year from 2015 onwards. By 2020, we will phase out biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill, the first such ban in the UK.
As we have heard, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee today took evidence from stakeholders on the climate change programme, and I look forward to giving evidence to the committee next week. I will lay our annual report on climate emissions at the end of the month and will make a statement to Parliament as soon as possible thereafter. The independent Committee on Climate Change says that we are making good progress, particularly on renewables and domestic energy efficiency, although we recognise that keeping up progress on tackling climate change will require new commitments and policies to be brought to bear year on year.
We have committed about £1.3 billion over the three-year spending review period to additional climate action relating to energy, homes and communities, businesses and the public sector, transport, waste and rural land use. We recently made commitments to keep us on track for our 2020 objectives. Those include a new Cabinet sub-committee on climate change, £15 million more for electric vehicles, new cycling infrastructure, the greening of the common agricultural policy, including proposals for nutrient management on permanent grassland, and the roll-out of the smarter choices, smarter places initiative throughout Scotland over the next two years as part of our commitment to achieve almost total decarbonisation of road transport by 2050.
We have doubled our funding for the climate justice fund to £6 million. Next week, I will announce the successful round 2 projects for sub-Saharan Africa. We are supporting the 2020 climate group, Keep Scotland Beautiful, Glasgow Caledonian University and SolarAid with £200,000 for their Scotland lights up Malawi project, which involves rolling out household solar lamps. As part of my web address during the UN summit, I committed to supporting the compact of states and regions. That platform for reporting progress on climate action will help to give the confidence in delivery from all levels of Government that national Governments need to encourage them to make ambitious pledges to the international treaty. Scotland can play a key role in demonstrating the economic benefits of making the transition to a low-carbon economy and can encourage other countries to follow our lead. We can also help to make the humanitarian case for action.
I will continue to work with the UK Government. We have always worked constructively with the UK Government in international affairs on the issue, as well as with our partners in the EU and around the world to make the case for higher ambition, to promote Scotland’s low-carbon economy and to champion climate justice. I gently point out to Jamie McGrigor—if he is listening—that the UK target of 34 per cent and the five-year carbon budgets are far easier to implement and achieve than the measures that are required under our legislative framework. I hope that he recognises that fact, given the points that he made about our performance.
We believe that the EU is an important party to the UNFCCC and has shown strong leadership on climate change over the years. We want to ensure that that continues and that the EU can respond with an appropriate commitment to an ambitious treaty. The EU will need to go beyond the 40 per cent pledge for 2030 as part of a treaty that will stand a good chance of limiting global warming to 2°C. UK Government modelling shows that a 40 per cent EU 2030 target will cost the equivalent of only 0.01 per cent of annual growth and that a 50 per cent target will cost the equivalent of only 0.03 per cent of annual growth. We should compare that to the cost of the damage that will be done to our ecosystems and way of life if climate change is not controlled. We will also continue to support a high renewables ambition within the EU for the 2030 package.
At the UNFCCC conference in Lima in December, I will promote Scotland’s story on high ambition to the widest possible audience. As I previously mentioned, we have important contacts within the UN. Being active members of the climate group gives us access to its Government and business networks and events. Non-governmental organisations, the media and new members of the European Parliament are potentially important target audiences for us, as are international finance institutions. We will take a keen interest in the overall level of global ambition, which has to match up to the aim of limiting global warming to 2°C.
All those things are important, yet we cannot participate in key negotiation tracks, even on areas in which we lead, such as peatlands. We are somewhat encouraged by the emerging commitment this year of the big players—the US, China and of course the EU—to delivering a climate treaty in Paris in 2015 but, in Scotland, we have already made our commitments, unilaterally and without conditions. In fact, we did so many years ago and have since followed through with delivery.
Once again, I thank members for participating in the debate. I appreciate the comments that have been made.
I will come to the targets. I briefly make the point to Mr McGrigor that serious global figures are looking at what we are doing. They recognise the challenges and understand the technicalities of what we are trying to do, and they welcome that and praise Scotland for doing the right thing. I hope that members will be magnanimous today in talking about Scotland’s role on the international stage, and that they will recognise that fact. I acknowledge that we face a challenge, and I will come to the technical point about the targets.
Our aim, through our world-leading targets that are set in legislation, has been to provide certainty for business and the public about Scotland’s low-carbon future. Our high-level political commitment is to the creation of low-carbon jobs, investment, trade and growth and to the delivery of strong counter-cyclical investment flow during the recent global downturn. Since 1990, we have cut our adjusted emissions by 26.4 per cent. We achieved a 15 per cent cut between 2007 and 2012, compared to a 12 per cent cut across the United Kingdom, and we are on track to deliver our world-leading 42 per cent target for 2020 despite the European Union not having raised its 2020 targets.
In 2013, we generated the equivalent of 46.6 per cent of our electricity demand from renewables, and there were record levels of investment in the sector. There has been a massive scaling up. We have pursued a cross-Government approach with a new Cabinet sub-committee on climate change to drive progress across portfolios, which supplements the climate change delivery board, which is for senior managers. It is important that public bodies in Scotland have a legal duty to support action on climate change, and we have made climate adaptation an integral part of our climate response.
The landscape of the low-carbon economy in Scotland provides ready examples of successful approaches: the Green Investment Bank, the 2020 group of progressive leaders, onshore and offshore wind, marine energy and the saltire prize, carbon capture and storage, the climate challenge fund—the funding for which we increased this year—and the junior climate challenge fund. We are on track towards our targets for reducing energy consumption, we have increased our forestry planting rate and we are acting to ban the sending to landfill of biodegradable municipal waste.
As well as domestic achievements, Scotland is championing climate justice, which is a powerful set of humanitarian messages that are of international importance. Climate change is already impacting on vulnerable communities around the world. The poor and vulnerable at home and overseas are often the first to be affected by climate change and are suffering the worst, yet they have done comparatively little—if anything—to cause the problem. Climate justice can bring developed and developing countries together around a people-centred human rights approach in order to deliver equitable global development. It demonstrates that we care. Our innovative £6 million climate justice fund demonstrates Scotland’s commitment to the promotion of climate justice, and is providing assistance to projects in Malawi and Zambia. We will announce the second round of awards in the near future.
The fifth progress report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that the evidence is unequivocal: climate change is real and is caused by human activity. Extreme weather events are increasing in scale and frequency, and the increasing body of evidence shows that we cannot afford to delay action to tackle climate change. It will only get more expensive and more difficult to do so, and we are running out of time to limit global temperature increases to 2°C.
Climate change is a threat to all countries, and all countries have a responsibility to help to tackle it. All countries face challenges in reducing emissions; Scotland is no different, but the Scottish Government is committed to meeting the targets that we have set ourselves, and to leading by example. We can be encouraged by the many pledges and commitments that were made at the summit, but there remains much to do. We need to hear more detail from many countries and see what further pledges need to be made to limit global warming to 2°C.
Countries have agreed that a new globally binding agreement will be reached at the conference of the parties in Paris at the end of 2015. That new agreement must be ambitious enough to limit global temperature increases and avoid catastrophic climate change that will affect all countries, but hit the poorest hardest.
Scotland has made a strong commitment. Our targets are in line with scientific evidence and with what an ambitious treaty will demand of us. Of that, we can all be proud. All countries must work towards the agreed timetable. Those that have not done so must bring forward their pledges as soon as possible.
We will continue to work to influence our partners around the world. Specifically, we will support the EU in playing a leading role. We want the EU to commit to an emissions reduction target of 50 per cent by 2030, in the context of a global agreement.
At last week’s UN summit, world leaders were left in no doubt about the scale of the challenge that is posed by climate change. This Parliament has a proud record of supporting action on climate change.
I look forward to hearing members’ contributions.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the successful climate summit hosted by the UN Secretary General in New York on 23 September 2014 and is encouraged by the range of commitments made by countries, business and civil society; notes the latest scientific evidence on rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and the costs of delaying action; welcomes the announcement of the Compact of States and Regions; notes that the UK Government made no new pledges; agrees that new devolved powers to give Scotland a stronger and more clearly articulated voice on the international stage would allow Scotland to play a leading role in encouraging countries to match Scotland’s high ambition on climate change and to follow Scotland’s example in making the transition to a low-carbon economy and championing climate justice, and calls on all countries, including all EU member states, to use the opportunity presented at the forthcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties in Lima, Peru, to make further progress and demonstrate their commitment toward an ambitious, global and legally binding climate change agreement in Paris in 2015.
16:00
I am pleased to speak in this debate in support of Claudia Beamish’s amendment.
Obviously, no more important challenge faces us than climate change. I know that, across the chamber, we all strongly welcome the UN climate change summit and welcome climate change being at the top of the political agenda, where it belongs.
Two days before the UN summit, people across the world marched in their hundreds of thousands in more than 150 cities, including Edinburgh. Men, women and children marched to demand that Governments, businesses and citizens get serious about fighting climate change. They demanded urgent and decisive action to save our planet, safeguard our future and protect the things that we love and value.
During the summit in New York, we certainly heard many bold and positive statements from world leaders about the actions that they would take to reduce emissions and build up the resilience of the most vulnerable populations to climate change. We even heard from Leonardo DiCaprio, who told the UN summit:
“Our economy itself will die if our ecosystems collapse.”
It is significant that China sent out positive signals for the first time that it, too, would make greater efforts to effectively address climate change.
We have also seen a welcome move away from the idea that there is a conflict between reducing emissions and delivering economic results, with the recognition that a more sustainable economy will result in a higher quality of life for the world’s population.
Those are positive developments. The challenge now is to maintain the political momentum and ensure that the bold statements are backed up by action.
In its briefing for today’s debate, Stop Climate Chaos stated that global greenhouse gas emissions are now 61 per cent higher than they were in 1990. Global temperatures are also on the rise, and the often devastating impact of climate change is affecting more people across the world, so the need for action has never been greater. It is therefore disappointing that, in a debate that should be consensual, the constitutional angle has been brought into the Government’s motion, when we already have the powers to deliver the change that we need.
Although I know that the Scottish Government is keen to showcase Scotland’s climate change ambitions, we all share those ambitions. It is a fact that the Scottish Government has failed to achieve its emissions targets in each of the past three years. I was at the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee meeting this morning, and the consensus among the stakeholders was that it is very difficult to see how we can now meet the 2020 target. That is a big concern to all of us in the chamber.
Climate change is one of the most important and challenging issues that we face. We have a duty to our children, their children and their children’s children to get this right. The bottom line is that we must not only promise radical action but commit the time, money and resources that are needed to achieve change and deliver results.
I recognise that this is not just about the Scottish Government or Westminster, or the policies that we debate in Parliament or agree at international summits. Each and every one of us has the power to change the future of our planet and to make the day-to-day decisions that will secure a better future for the generations to come.
We know that taking ambitious action on climate change will deliver rewards: a stronger economy, more jobs, healthier lives, cleaner air and a better quality of life both now and in the future. Let us work together now to ensure that we can achieve our climate change targets. We need to lead by example, using the powers that we already have, and take bold action. I would like to hear more about how the SNP Government will compensate for missing the climate change targets. More important, I hope that we can move forward and build a consensus about how we tackle climate change and take every opportunity to achieve a cleaner, greener and more sustainable Scotland and climate justice across the world.
16:20
There was encouragement to be drawn from the climate summit that was held in New York. We sense that the world—or at least most of it—has finally woken up to the impact of climate change and the need to transition to a low-carbon economy. That is little wonder, given that the evidence of how climate change is affecting our daily lives is all around us. Even parts of the planet that were previously in denial are feeling the impact.
California is in the grip of a drought that the state has declared an emergency, and the federal Government has designated all 58 counties of California as natural disaster areas. People there are contending with wildfires and increased air pollution. Direct and indirect agricultural losses of at least $22 billion are forecast, as is the loss of 17,000 seasonal and part-time jobs. A research paper on the drought that Stanford scientists published just yesterday asserts that unusually warm temperatures, stagnant air conditions and lack of precipitation are “very likely” down to human-caused climate change, which has created a blocking ridge over the north-eastern Pacific, preventing storms from reaching the state during the rainy season.
Earlier this week, a report drawn from the work of five groups of researchers named greenhouse gas emissions as the direct cause of the heatwave that baked Australia for much of 2013 and the early part of 2014, which led to the Australian open tennis having to be suspended as temperatures climbed to 111° Fahrenheit. How ironic that the Australians have repealed a law that was intended to reduce emissions and appointed a climate change sceptic to review the country’s renewable energy targets.
What of here at home? David Cameron’s comments at the summit were to some degree welcome. After he rid himself of Owen Paterson—an environment secretary who seemed not to do science—it was good to hear the Prime Minister state that
“climate change is one of the most serious threats facing our world”
and that a global deal in Paris next year “must” be agreed. His commitment to push the EU for a 40 per cent cut in emissions by 2030 was a step in the right direction, even if we would go further. Much less welcome was his warm embrace of nuclear power and shale gas extraction. Surely it would be far better for the UK Government to show commitment to genuinely green forms of energy and not those that carry such environmental risk.
There are clear differences in approach to the subject between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Here in Scotland, last week’s figures for renewable electricity generation provided welcome encouragement as we journey towards meeting 100 per cent of our needs from clean, green energy sources. According to figures released by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Scotland’s renewable electricity generation was 30 per cent higher during the first half of 2014 compared with the same period last year, due to a 50 per cent rise in hydro generation and a 20 per cent rise in wind output.
The figures also showed increases in the non-electrical heat demand that Scotland meets from renewable sources, and it is estimated that renewables contributed 46.5 per cent of gross electricity consumption in 2013, up from 39.9 per cent in 2012, which suggests that Scotland is on track to meet its interim 2015 target.
While we cannot ignore missing the climate change targets, let us recognise that the resetting of the baseline figures has been largely responsible for that, acknowledge that the direction of travel is positive and celebrate progress on the renewables front.
A week past Sunday, more than 300,000 people marched in New York. That was as many as took part in the great march in 1963, when Martin Luther King delivered his “I have a dream” speech to galvanise the civil rights movement, and as many as took part in the largest Vietnam war protests in the city. It was as large as the most iconic social movement gatherings that the US has seen. In London, 40,000 people marched.
In Edinburgh, 3,000 miles away from the UN summit, I had the privilege of marching with and speaking to thousands of people—people who demand to be taken seriously. I shared a platform not with celebrities but with ordinary people from all ages and backgrounds. We were all particularly struck by the eloquence of an 11-year-old girl who took to the platform and spoke passionately of the need for change. It was a really participative event. It was not about politicians talking to people but about people demanding change from their Governments, asking for leadership and committing to playing their part as individuals.
People know that we are on the cusp of an opportunity. The stated aim of the Paris meeting next year is to agree a binding universal deal. That needs practical action at Lima in December and strong commitments for post-2020 targets from all nations at the start of 2015. However, it also needs action and politicians who are willing to take action before a deal is struck. We must retain the agreement in Scotland on strong action.
The Government has made part of its motion today about more powers. I agree that more powers are vital to Scotland’s ability to deliver its climate targets. However, it is also a question of commitment, of political will and of funding.
The Labour amendment contains lots that I like. It is true to say that the Government needs to turn more proposals on transport demand, energy efficiency and agriculture into on-the-ground action if future domestic targets are to be met. However, the amendment cuts out some important text from the motion. New powers should not shape this debate, but they undeniably have a bearing on the Government’s ability to run a sustainable economy. For example, Scotland does not need or want fracking. Further, climate is also an ethical issue, and the Labour and Conservative amendments remove references to climate justice.
I welcome the minister’s comments regarding our proposals on pension funds. The Green amendment was not selected for debate today, but I would be grateful for any opportunity to discuss the issue with the minister. Last week, the Swedish national pension fund announced plans to decarbonise its entire equity portfolio, as its chief executive officer launched the UN’s portfolio decarbonisation coalition. Pensions have long-term investment horizons and are exactly the funds that should be most keenly aware of the risk that climate change will leave fossil-fuel companies with billions of pounds of stranded assets.
We have also heard that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and others are to divest $50 billion from fossil fuels as part of the divest-invest coalition. I am sure that it has not passed people’s ken that the Rockefellers built their fortune on oil. Only their philanthropic fund is divesting. That is small compared with the actual business, but the announcement is still significant.
Greens are keen to work with the Government to add Scottish pensions to the list of those decarbonising their portfolios. Climate action means making choices about where we invest and where we do not. We must meet the next target, and all parties that supported those targets should have policies that are not contradictory. We have extremely significant opportunities to ensure that we deliver Scotland’s commitment to climate justice, and I will work with all those who have that commitment at heart.
16:40
The Scottish Government welcomes this opportunity for Parliament to reflect on the climate summit that was hosted by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon in New York on Tuesday last week.
The summit signalled that we are now in a crucial period leading to the UN climate conferences in Lima in December this year and in Paris in December 2015. In Lima, the first draft of the text of a new international climate agreement will be considered. Parties will then submit their intended national contributions to the new agreement during the first quarter of 2015. The international community has committed to finalising in Paris a new treaty to limit global temperature rise to no more than 2°C from pre-industrial levels.
Scotland strongly supports the goal of an ambitious global climate change agreement. I therefore thank members for attending this important debate. Scotland’s commitment to strong action on climate change has been built on the cross-party support that has been demonstrated in Parliament over many years. We also have strong support from businesses, trade unions, non-governmental organisations, civic society and academia. Climate marches that took place throughout Scotland two weekends ago demonstrate how seriously the people of Scotland take climate change. As a nation, we should all be very proud of that cross-party support and support from all sectors of society in Scotland. It is one of the key features of our distinctive approach to climate change.
Since 2009, when we first passed our ambitious climate change legislation, Scotland has been working to a plan that delivers what the science tells us we must do as our contribution to an international climate treaty to avoid dangerous levels of global warming. So, Scotland is in a unique position internationally. We have unilaterally and unconditionally set high ambitions for pre-2020 and post-2020. Our targets to reduce emissions by at least 42 per cent by 2020, by 58 per cent by 2027 and by at least 80 per cent by 2050 mean that Scotland already has the commitment and readiness to deliver our part in the Paris agreement next year.
Our comprehensive approach to climate change has many positive features that are valuable examples to other countries that help them to commit to and to build their own ambitious climate action programmes. I therefore wrote to key international figures to ensure that they were fully informed of Scotland’s commitments in advance of the summit. They included Christiana Figueres, who is the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and who was in Scotland recently; Peruvian environment minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who was president of this year’s conference of the parties 20 in Lima; and the outgoing European climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, who has complimented Scottish ambition on climate change in Holyrood magazine recently and who issued a warm reply to my letter.
Following Ban Ki-moon’s invitation to Scotland to participate in the UN sustainable energy for all initiative, we were privileged to host the European launch of the UN decade of sustainable energy for all by Kandeh Yumkella, who was the UN’s special representative in Glasgow during the Commonwealth games. That was praised by Mary Robinson and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. We were also very pleased to welcome Mary Robinson’s recent appointment by Ban Ki-moon as UN special representative on climate change, and of course Mary Robinson is very closely in touch with Scotland’s high ambition on tackling climate change and our championing of climate justice, having given the keynote address at our international climate justice conference last autumn.
Although we have been able to raise awareness of Scotland’s ambition and commitment on climate change at the most senior levels in the UN, it is infinitely preferable that Scotland have its own voice in international fora so that we can better promote Scotland’s example to the wider world.
During the UN summit on 23 September, the climate group, which is an international network of Governments and businesses, hosted on its website a video address by me on Scotland’s ambitious climate change programme. It also hosted a link to an excellent video by Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, including messages of cross-party support and messages from business, for an international audience for Scotland’s climate action.
I will say something about the proposed amendments to the motion. Alison Johnstone has raised the issue of the decarbonisation of public sector pension fund investments. Given that there is a growing trend among investors to reconsider their investments in fossil fuels—the point was made at our international climate justice conference last year—we are happy to talk to public sector pensions funds about that and to encourage low-carbon investment.
I am, unfortunately, rejecting the amendments in the names of Jamie McGrigor and Claudia Beamish. Of course we face challenges in delivering our climate change ambitions, but international figures, including Mary Robinson, Kandeh Yumkella and Connie Hedegaard, and expert bodies such as the climate group are clear about the value of Scotland’s commitment to act on climate change and climate justice. We can be confident that international figures know the challenges and know that Scotland is on the right track. Scotland made the commitments that are needed for Paris many years ago, and we have followed up with strong delivery. I shall set out some of that later
I am pleased to open today’s short debate for the Scottish Conservatives. As a farmer, I am sure that climate change is one of the most important issues that we face. It is a serious threat to our environment, to the economy, to global security and to the eradication of poverty.
Although it is welcome that the UN summit made some progress, international leaders need to turn rhetoric into action, and there are significant challenges ahead before the Paris summit late next year. China’s vice-premier Zhang Gaoli surprised many people when he said that the country's emissions would peak as soon as possible, and we must all hope that that is the case, not least because China has just surpassed the EU in annual greenhouse gas emissions per capita.
The agreement that was reached on deforestation, which included a pledge to halve it by 2020 and to stamp it out by 2030, is welcome, although Brazil’s refusal to sign up is a disappointment, and many people will want the agreement to be made legally binding.
I welcome David Cameron’s positive role at the summit, and the speech that he gave. He was able to speak with real authority because our UK Government’s record is strong. We have honoured our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on international development, and we are investing £4 billion in climate finance and more than £200 million in tackling deforestation in poor countries. The Prime Minister’s pledge that he would push his fellow EU leaders to come to Paris with ambitious emissions reduction targets is also to be welcomed.
The UK Government is also making significant progress at home with multibillion-pound investments in the development of new nuclear power and advanced carbon storage. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that if the international community gets things right, there need not be a trade-off between economic growth and reducing carbon emissions.
We can also be very proud of the UK’s cutting-edge research. Last year, I hosted a parliamentary reception on nuclear fusion research and the excellent job that is being done at Culham. Nuclear fusion has the capacity to solve the energy problems of the future, but we need to ensure that we are prepared to take the necessary long-term decisions. After all, one inherent problem over past decades has been the use of short-term solutions to deal with long-term problems.
We acknowledge the Scottish Government’s efforts to tackle the causes of climate change here, and the good work of so many Scottish organisations, businesses and individuals, including the minister himself. Of course, the Scottish Government would have had more credibility on the issue had it met its greenhouse gas emissions targets in 2010, 2011 and 2012 instead of missing them, so we look forward to progress being made in that area.
Practical user-friendly measures that individuals and businesses can adopt must be a priority. On that point, this very morning, I met individuals from the Horticultural Trades Association. The sector is a significant employer in Scotland, and the association highlighted examples of green walls of climbing plants that are used in other countries as a form of air-conditioning and heat preserver. Given what we know of the benefit of green spaces to our urban communities and the general contribution that plants make to a cleaner future, why are we not doing more to help Scotland’s horticultural industry—which is in some ways disadvantaged by regulatory bodies that in some cases are no longer fit for purpose—to employ more people and at the same time give greater environmental benefit?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
That surely would have been the right message to have sent out from the Parliament as our reaction and response to the UN’s climate summit. Instead, the Government has chosen to have its habitual dig at the UK Government while falling into the trap that Johann Lamont pleaded with it not to fall into in her speech to Parliament last Tuesday. It does so by asking us to agree
“that new devolved powers to give Scotland a stronger and more clearly articulated voice on the international stage would allow Scotland to play a leading role in encouraging countries to match Scotland’s high ambition on climate change”.
I am not against further powers being devolved to the Parliament but, if the Government needs further powers
“to play a leading role in encouraging countries to match Scotland’s high ambition”,
why has it been shouting from every available rooftop since the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was first introduced that we have world-leading climate change legislation in place already and that we are leading the world in setting challenging targets? It did not need extra powers to make those lofty claims. Indeed, the minister repeated them in his opening speech.
Could it be that the Government seeks to deflect attention away from the fact that, as many members mentioned, it has failed to achieve any of the first three annual targets that it has set? I have said before and say again that I back the Government in setting challenging targets even if it does not achieve them because that must be preferable to setting targets that can be easily achieved. However, I could not help but notice an emerging trend in our Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee meeting this morning to highlight bureaucratic issues such as baseline changes, changing identifiers and other measures that, apparently, now begin to call the validity of our targets into question.
I make this plea: do not let us dilute the debate; let the Government stick to the targets, take the flak if it does not achieve them and then secure the agreement of a chamber that is essentially and broadly sympathetic to its cause on the issue when it tries to identify the best way forward.
I will be a little more optimistic than Tavish Scott on the UN summit because I hope that it was the success that it was claimed to be, although, to be frank, I despair that some notable world leaders chose to be elsewhere. I applaud the fact that our Prime Minister was there and committed himself to driving forward an EU agreement to a 40 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030.
I will not criticise the UK Government for not making any new pledges as the motion asks us to do. The summit was called to pave the way for Paris 2015. That is where the big pledges and commitments are to be made and, if there is criticism of any country after that, so be it.
I repeat my request to the Government that, in the next debate on this vitally important subject, it returns to the atmosphere and language of consensus that normally typify climate change debates so that we can speak with a unified voice. That is the right way to generate the physical and behavioural changes that are needed to deliver the targets. Sadly, the pre-referendum rhetoric and the tone of the motion can only achieve the opposite.
16:45
As we have heard, the global climate challenges are indeed great. I would like to sound a note of optimism at this stage. Global action is already having an effect and it should inspire us all that having legally binding agreements, which we are all determined will come out of the summit process leading to Paris, can have a profound effect.
In last week’s Economist, there was a bar chart showing that the annual emissions savings of certain policies or practices are already working globally. I was struck by the impact of the Montreal protocol, which members will probably remember was agreed in 1987 and has resulted in the phasing out of substances such as chlorofluorocarbons.
According to The Economist, the policy is responsible for an annual 5.6 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent savings in greenhouse gas emissions, which shows that there are measures that can dramatically reduce global emissions as long as the international will is there.
Barack Obama and Zhang Gaoli, China’s vice-premier, suggested that—as is highlighted in our amendment—economic transformation could take place that would not only avoid the crippling economic consequences of inaction but would result in a higher quality of life for the world’s population.
The video that accompanied the “Better Growth, Better Climate” report could not state it any more simply:
“The investments needed to shift to a low carbon economy are almost the same as those investments we’ll make anyway.”
Business in Scotland has a good story to tell in that regard, which we can share globally. From Scotland’s 2020 climate group that the minister mentioned to the whisky industry’s initiatives and the climate monitor farms, there are many win-wins to recount.
The public sector also has much to share with other countries on the development process, whereby change is happening through the climate leaders forum and engagement to effect change throughout the sector.
As a member of the cross-party group on China, I have been interested that many members have mentioned China this afternoon. I have been following developments there to some degree. Although I recognise Tavish Scott’s remarks, China is now the biggest investor in renewables technology in the world, and I believe that it is possible to avoid some of the dirty industry phase for countries such as China. China is also giving support to other countries; it has committed the equivalent of $6 million to south-south development.
Here, the Scottish climate justice fund has targeted support to Malawi, where we have strong historical ties. That complements the more strategic global support by the UK Government.
How we measure progress is crucial at a country and global level in mapping the way forward. Let us measure what matters. The national performance framework includes a carbon indicator and one of the purpose targets is “Sustainability—Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”
Scotland is leading in this area. Encouragingly, there is a parallel interest in other countries. In China, 70 small cities and counties will no longer use gross domestic product as an equivalent performance indicator for local officials. Evaluation will instead be based on raising living standards for poor residents and reducing the number of people living in poverty. Such initiatives need to be developed and given status through the summit process at a global level, and the challenge of compatible data must be addressed.
If the necessary political leadership is to be effective at all levels, support for action on behaviour change is essential, as Graeme Dey highlighted earlier. Awareness raising of climate change issues and how communities can get involved here in Scotland is another good story we could share.
Social media has played a part. The for the love of campaign and the recent Stop Climate Chaos action film show how people in Scotland are working together, and they can be shared the world over through the internet. As others have said, 2,000 people marched in Edinburgh, adding to the vast numbers marching across the world to highlight concern before the New York summit.
Collective understanding of the need for change is positive and important, but support is essential. Communities in Scotland are acting for change, and support from the climate challenge fund is becoming effective and more inclusive. My own local burgh of Lanark tells the story well, and its example should, along with many others, be shared in towns throughout Scotland and beyond. The Lanark Community Development Trust says:
“We hope our project is beginning to change attitudes to growing your own produce and cutting down on food miles, certainly the school children seem to understand that.”
Climate justice is the way forward not only for developing countries but here in Scotland and in the UK if households and communities on low incomes are to be included on everything from sustainable living to flood prevention. The global dangers and opportunities for change that the climate change challenge presents are immense, but the Scottish Government and Scotland have a good story to tell. As Cara Hilton said, we must all contribute to the action, and I wish the minister well in Lima.
16:50
Final minute.
Minister, you have avoided the fact that you have missed the target for three years running. Surely you should not be triumphant about that.
We have been developing the Scotland rural development programme in the light of the common agricultural policy package. As Claudia Beamish knows, that tranche of money will go through the SRDP. We have developed a peatlands plan. We are doing work on the issue, and we hope that land managers will be provided with what is necessary to allow them to take up the opportunity.
Final minute.
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-011029, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on the United Nations climate summit 2014. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, although I have to advise members that the debate is oversubscribed, so it is unlikely that I will be able to call all members who wish to speak.
I call Paul Wheelhouse to speak to and move the motion. Minister, you have a maximum of 10 minutes, but if you use less time that might allow me to call more members.
15:50
Can members remember to speak through the chair, please?
You are now in your final minute, Ms Beamish.
I do not want to dwell on this at great length, but it would be helpful if the Labour Party read the Government’s motion, which merely refers to
“devolved powers to give Scotland a ... voice on the international stage”.
We are almost unique, because the Catalans have a constitutional right to be part of the Spanish delegation, the Flemings have a constitutional right to be part of the Belgian delegation, the Italian provinces have a constitutional right to be part of the Italian delegation—and I can keep going. However, when the Labour Government was in power at Westminster, Gordon Brown expressly forbade the Scottish ministers and their delegation from being inside the conference hall. Thanks to the Maldives, we were able to get a temporary seat in the hall and network with the appropriate people. All we ask for is parity with other substates around the world, and that is all the motion says.
However, let us talk about the substantive issue before us, because I hope and believe that there is continuing consensus on the need to tackle climate change. I want to rely on a definition of the environment that does not limit it to the natural world but includes the surroundings and conditions in which a person lives or operates. The ethics of the effect on individuals around the world is a very important part of the debate on climate change. Developing countries in particular pay the price for our climate profligacy. When I say our climate profligacy, I encompass all the developed world in that description, including Scotland, but it is by no means limited to Scotland.
We have heard reference to Mary Robinson, a good friend to action on climate change and a good friend to Scotland. She has said that there is substantial agreement among Governments that climate change is undermining human rights. I look in particular at what happens in Africa in that regard, particularly the gender effect of climate change. In Africa, 70 to 80 per cent of the farmers are females. Mary Robinson has said:
“Women on the whole don’t get agriculture training. And they’re having to learn now to diversify their crops, to have seeds that can survive in drought or survive in waterlogged [conditions], and so there’s a disconnect between even the donor community for this agricultural training, mainly focusing on men, and who’s [actually doing the farming].”
That is the price that is being paid by people in poverty in many countries in Africa. I hope that in our international engagement, whatever its character and whatever opportunities exist for it, we will be able to pursue that gender inequality in particular, because the effects of that gap between men and women are very substantial.
I wish the minister extremely well in Lima. I have not been there since 1980, when conditions in Lima were far from ideal for an international conference. There were burning barricades round the outside of the city, and the taxi that we were travelling in at one point actually picked up a bullet—I survived by 2 feet. I hope that the minister has a more satisfactory visit to Lima and that we can continue to tell the message of building on the 29.9 per cent reduction in our emissions over the past 14 years and that we continue to lead by example and articulate the reality of the economic opportunities from tackling what is a moral problem.
16:24
I open the debate for Scottish Labour with mixed feelings. I have a clear sense that the debate is timely and significant, as it comes after the New York climate summit, which drew together world leaders to address climate change, which is the most urgent issue facing our planet, to find a collective response to the challenges that are posed. I am also pleased to hear that the minister wrote to key players before the summit. However, I am deeply disappointed that the Scottish Government should use precious time on a world-threatening issue such as climate change to try to continue a constitutional debate, as stated in the motion—
I thank members for their contributions to this important debate. As I said earlier, the scientific evidence is overwhelming: climate change is happening. Extreme weather events are increasing in strength and frequency, as Graeme Dey outlined.
The road to a binding international agreement has reached a critical stage. We know that the cost of inaction will be far greater than the cost of taking strong action now. With that in mind, the UN secretary general’s New York summit was convened during this crucial period to galvanise commitments from the international community at the all-important head-of-Government level.
I spoke in my opening remarks about the cross-party, business and civic society support for strong action in Scotland on climate change. Another key lesson that we have for other countries is the level of senior and cross-Government political support for our climate programme in Scotland. I know that many Governments envy the cross-party nature of the support in the chamber for our action.
From the First Minister down, through Cabinet colleagues and across portfolios, our own cross-Government approach has been a key feature of our response. The First Minister’s commitment to renewable energy and championing of climate justice has, I am sure, been noted by many members. The Deputy First Minister’s support, through the hydro nation initiative, for the climate justice fund to which Claudia Beamish and other members referred, is to be noted.
The finance secretary’s prioritising of low carbon in our Government economic strategy and his personal commitment to our climate justice agenda, having spoken at last year’s conference, are very welcome. There is strong support too from international development colleagues for our international climate change and climate justice agenda. That is not to mention, of course, the huge cross-portfolio efforts—to pick up Mary Fee’s point—on domestic delivery in housing, business, the public sector, transport and rural affairs.
Our success has come partly from having absolute buy-in on the need for action on climate change, from the head-of-Government level down and on all sides of the chamber. The UN is now looking for that buy-in from other countries.
Scotland has a hugely important track record of high ambition. To pick up Tavish Scott’s point, we are delivering on the climate change agenda, and I will outline some examples. As Stewart Stevenson pointed out, the motion very fairly does not mention independence; it just refers to having, in a devolved Government set-up, that which other countries take for granted in their own nation states. However, with our own voice on the international stage we could better promote Scotland’s example in tackling climate change to a global audience.
Have I a moment to finish, Presiding Officer?
Globally and here in Scotland, we will make the necessary progress only if we pull together. It is exactly the same in the wider environmental responsibility context. We must, for example, continue to increase recycling rates and drive down the tonnage that goes to landfill. I think that we will continue to do that. It is important that we improve on the recycling figures that came out last week.
I mention that in passing because I genuinely believe that, among the general populace, there is an appetite for acting in an environmentally responsible manner, and it is improving. The public do get that they must do their bit on an individual level and, although they might have reservations about onshore wind, they recognise that it forms part of a balanced green energy generation programme and they would certainly rather be clean and green than dice with the risks that come with fracking—
I was concerned to hear about the assassination attempt on Mr Stevenson, and that he survived. In a more serious vein, I remind him that, when he was more recently an environment minister, the then environment secretary in the UK Government took him to international conferences as very much part of the delegation. Chris Huhne was mindful of taking the Scottish minister, who happened at that time to be Mr Stevenson. That is the right approach.
It is disappointing that the Government lodged a motion that was always going to divide the chamber. As a number of members have said, surely most of us can reach broad agreement on the issue. In fairness to Mr Wheelhouse, his remarks did not follow his motion. They were entirely reasonable, as one would expect but, sadly, that was not the case for the motion.
I will gently pick Mr Wheelhouse up on one point. If I noted him correctly, he said that the Scottish Parliament has a proud record of supporting action. We have a proud record of supporting targets, but we surely know from environmental organisations—and not least Stop Climate Chaos Scotland’s briefing—that we are some way from dealing in concrete actions. Members on all sides have made that point in relation to the targets, which have yet to be achieved. I hope that we can achieve the targets. When we do so, perhaps Scotland can be a little more assertive about its position, and it will not be just rhetoric.
My real difficulty with the motion relates not to all the political stuff but to the suggestion that the New York summit was a success. My reading of New York is that, as usual, we got a huge amount of rhetoric from Obama and everyone else, but not much action. It worries me most that the Chinese made it abundantly clear that they have no plans whatever to comply with international emission standards reductions, because they consider China to be a developing country and not a developed country. In China’s view, its arguments about the number of its people who fall within the UN definition of being in poverty completely outweigh the emissions from its coal industry and other such challenges.
The New York summit might have done some things, but it was long on rhetoric and short on action. We have a long way to go globally before differences are made. In New York, the French gave poor countries a $1 billion guarantee, which was definitely progress, as was the commitment from pension funds and the bank and insurance industry to low-carbon ventures, which is meant to be worth about $200 billion. Those aspects are concrete. However, the main commitment of the US, which is still the world’s biggest economy, was to take climate change into account in overseas aid spending. That can hardly be construed as an enormous step forward.
What chance Paris 2015? The minister was right to highlight the importance of that conference. We are a considerable way from extolling the virtues of a guaranteed agreement in Paris next December—that is a long way from happening—but I hope that the minister will support Ed Davey’s work in the European Union. On his initiative as the UK environment secretary, he created the green growth group, which is being driven forward by 15 EU nations. I hope that the minister will find time to support that and the measures that are being taken to put in place at the October European Council meeting, which will happen shortly, an agreed European climate change policy towards 2030. Poland opposes the proposal, because of its coal industry, so this is not yet a done deal even in Europe. Until such a policy is in place, we will be a considerable way from having the solution that we want in Europe and around the globe.
16:29
I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer.
Will Claudia Beamish take an intervention?
I turn to marine issues. I was hugely disappointed that the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems was not on the agenda at the UN summit last week. I believe that that is an area in which Scotland can lead progress, through marine protected areas and the marine plan. The possibility exists for the work in Scotland to be shared at global level. I hope that that will be possible, given that an incredible 90 per cent of the additional heat that has been created since the industrial revolution has been absorbed by our waters. It is very important to say that it is possible that that could continue. I hope that we can all work together with the Scottish Government and civic society to highlight the extent to which we are progressing marine issues and that, even at the 11th hour, some attempt can be made to get the matter put on the agenda at the summit in Lima in December.
I move amendment S4M-11029.4, to leave out from second “notes” to “global and” and insert:
“recognises the significance of the study carried out by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, the central tenet of which is that an economic transformation leading to a low-carbon economy could take place through coordinated international action, which would not only avoid crippling economic consequences, but would also result in a higher quality of life for the world’s population; agrees that Scotland has an important role to play in international efforts but that the Scottish Government must match ambition with action if it is to have credibility; regrets that the Scottish Government has failed to meet its annual emissions target for three years in a row and calls on it to achieve future annual targets and to commit to turning more proposals into policies, especially in the areas of transport, energy efficiency and agriculture, if Scotland is to have any prospect of meeting the 2020 and 2050 targets; calls on all countries, in the period leading up to future summits, to agree that the world’s oceans should be included in the climate change agreements between countries, and urges all countries to use the opportunity offered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties in Lima, Peru to work toward the delivery of a”.
16:08
You are in your final minute.
I am afraid that you must close.
Will the minister give way?
—and the toxic legacy of nuclear power.
16:33
I will finish my point first.
The Government is trying to continue a constitutional debate that was decided through the democratic process of the referendum two weeks ago. Nowhere in the pre-referendum promises was there any commitment to the devolution of international powers. That could be interpreted by many as an SNP drip-drip strategy for more powers towards independence, which is not what the people voted for. That also pre-empts the Smith commission’s work, of which the Scottish Government is a part. Therefore, we cannot accept the motion.
I had hoped that the Scottish Government would accept the people of Scotland’s decision on the referendum, thereby enabling a more consensual tone, as has been the case with recent chamber debates on global climate change. That would have built on the consensus that drove forward the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, on which there was cross-party support, as the minister has acknowledged.
Most of us will probably not have to deal with the worst consequences of the effects of climate change; that will be for our children, their children and the generations to come. It is a question of the legacy that we want to pass on to them. Will we be the generation that could have done something, but sat idly by and watched, or will we be remembered for our decisive action that ensured that we evaded the worst effects of climate change?
I move amendment S4M-11029.1, to leave out from second “notes” to “climate justice” and insert:
“welcomes the Prime Minister’s speech at the summit in which he highlighted that the UK has cut greenhouse gas emissions by one quarter and was on track to cut emissions by 80% by 2050; further welcomes the Prime Minister’s summit pledge to push European Union leaders to come to Paris with an offer to cut emissions by at least 40% by 2030; is of the opinion that the Scottish Government would have more credibility on climate change issues if it had not repeatedly failed to meet its own greenhouse gas emission reduction targets”.
I am really pushed for time—I ask the member to keep her intervention brief.
Is Claudia Beamish aware that the premiers of states in Canada and Australia can as of right be part of their countries’ delegations? On one occasion, Mike Rann, the premier of South Australia, invited Scotland to be part of a body, but we could not accept the invitation because we had no constitutional right to be present. That is all that Labour wants to delete from the Government motion. I very much regret the Labour Party’s denial of Scotland’s situation, which is that it is in a similar position to other countries and other states.
Does the minister agree that the motion mentions “new devolved powers”, which—as I highlighted—breaks to some degree the consensus on climate change?
Last week’s UN climate change summit was a momentous event. It started with hundreds of thousands of people across the world taking part in marches and calling for greater action to tackle climate change. Although much of the media focus was on celebrity attendance, I remain hopeful that great steps were taken in the challenges that the global community faces. I am positive that the admissions by the Chinese vice-premier Zhang Gaoli will start a new era in global dialogue over the action that is required.
However, as colleagues across the chamber have said, the Scottish Government has missed its ambitious targets for the third year in a row, despite having full control over the three main contributors to carbon emissions in Scotland: housing, transport and agriculture. In my speech, I will focus on housing and transport.
Will the member take a brief intervention?
I will if it is very brief.
Mary Fee made the point that there are three areas where the primary impact of climate change is found. Some of the tools by which we can influence energy efficiency in homes are still reserved to Westminster, the green deal being the most prominent of them.
Many thanks. We come to the open debate, and I must ask for speeches of a maximum of four minutes. We have already lost a member from the debate, and we are still tight for time.
16:12
I am at a bit of a loss as to know where to start in summing up the debate because, had the motion mirrored the minister’s opening speech, I would have had no difficulty in supporting it. However, Tavish Scott was right that the motion could only divide the chamber.
Claudia Beamish was also right that, in past debates, we have always managed to come to a broadly consensual decision—cross-party agreement on the way forward and pride in the role that Scotland plays in addressing this internationally vital issue. I am truly sorry that the Government motion does not allow us to maintain that broad consensus.
Indeed, following the weeks of division and impassioned debate on both sides of the referendum campaign into which all of us put our hearts and souls, the debate offered us a fantastic opportunity to come together again—at least on one subject—and show the world that, although we can have huge differences on our constitutional future, we can still speak as one when it comes to our environmental future.
Will Alex Fergusson take an intervention?
Previous
Ryder Cup 2014Next
Business Motions