Official Report 1273KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19280, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on Scotland’s commitment to global climate justice and fair climate finance. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that Glasgow hosted the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in 2021, which it considers built momentum for the establishment of the historic Loss and Damage Fund; understands that Scotland became the first nation to contribute to this fund with an initial £2 million pledge, demonstrating, it believes, Scotland’s leadership in climate justice; considers that climate change disproportionately affects the world’s most vulnerable communities that have contributed the least to the problem; believes that addressing climate impacts requires transformative fiscal reform and international cooperation to tackle economic and environmental inequalities; notes the view that industrialised countries and historic emitters, including Scotland and the UK, must meet their fair share of international climate finance, which it understands is estimated globally to be between £7.6 billion and £33 billion annually; further notes what it sees as Scotland’s ongoing commitment to championing climate justice and building on Glasgow’s COP26 legacy and the precedent set by Scotland’s Loss and Damage Fund contributions throughout the current parliamentary session, and notes the support for continued advocacy for these principles in international fora and within climate and development strategies.
19:09
It is a long time since I led a members’ business debate from the back benches, and so I am very pleased to have the opportunity to do so today.
COP30—the 30th UN climate change conference of the parties—will kick off in Brazil in just a few days’ time. As someone who attended five COP summits in my time as First Minister, I know how tense and high stakes they can be. Progress is never guaranteed and, more often than not, the talks go right to the wire.
However, in 2021, coming out of COP26 in Glasgow, there was cautious optimism that the world, albeit belatedly, and very tentatively, might be on the right track. There was consensus about the existential importance of taking action to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Although delivery on finance commitments continued to fall woefully short, there was a recognition that much more needed to be done. And, after a 30-year stalemate, we suddenly had momentum on the crucial issue of funding for loss and damage—to which, as it is the focus of my motion, I will return shortly.
Four years on, though, it feels very hard to stay optimistic. Climate action seems to have fallen prey—in some parts of the world, anyway—to the culture wars. Climate change denial has even raised its head again, and we are witnessing a rearguard action from the global fossil fuel industry, which, in my opinion, threatens the just transition to clean, renewable sources of energy. As a result, it now seems all but inevitable that global warming will exceed 1.5°C over the next few years. Although I hope that that will be only a temporary overshoot, the consequences will be devastating. Momentum on finance is also at risk of stalling.
Against that backdrop, it is impossible to overstate the importance of COP30. Scotland, of course, does not sit around the COP negotiating table. However, make no mistake that, because of the leadership that we have shown on climate action generally, but especially on loss and damage, our voice is respected and listened to. I pay tribute to the First Minister for grasping that baton of leadership so firmly, as demonstrated on his recent trip to Zambia and Malawi. Nevertheless, I urge the Scottish Government to raise its voice even more loudly and to continue to match its moral leadership with tangible policy.
On emissions, we must urge action that will get the world back on the 1.5°C track as quickly as possible. Of course, we must lead by example. That means a strong climate change plan, which I know that the cabinet secretary will publish shortly. I also encourage active discussion with the United Kingdom Government on policies such as a levy on private jet flights, which the First Minister has previously expressed interest in. In my view, there should also be a formalisation of the presumption against new oil and gas development. That is not about turning off oil and gas taps immediately, but recognising that new fossil fuel developments are not in the interests of either the climate or the North Sea workforce, which urgently needs all available skills, capital and focus to be on the renewables transition.
Let me turn now to funding for loss and damage. Loss and damage is the term used to describe the catastrophic impacts of climate change that can no longer be avoided through cutting emissions or building resilience—known, respectively, as mitigation and adaptation. Those impacts do not lie in some dystopian future; they are the present reality for the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations. They include hard economic losses such as infrastructure destroyed by floods or crops lost to drought. However, they also come in non-economic forms, such as the loss of cultural heritage or indigenous ways of life.
The total cost of loss and damage is estimated to be more than $500 billion since 2020 alone, and it is anticipated that, by 2030, the annual cost will rise to $400 billion. Of course, the countries bearing the lion’s share of those costs are those that have done the least to cause climate change. It is some of the poorest people on the planet who are now paying the price of the emissions that made industrialised countries like ours very rich. Therefore—and I make no apology for saying this—funding to help pay for loss and damage is not charity, but reparation. It is a moral obligation that the global north owes to the global south.
Since 1991, when a proposal for a loss and damage fund was first mooted, developed countries have stonewalled. That started to change in Glasgow. At COP26, the Scottish Government became the first Government in the world to pledge hard cash to loss and damage. We were inspired by the work of organisations such as the Loss and Damage Collaboration. Although our pledge then of £2 million was small in a global context, our leadership forced the momentum that led to the establishment of the international fund for responding to loss and damage at COP27 in Egypt.
Our funding is already making a tangible difference. Scotland should be proud of that global leadership, but we need to keep it up. More than that, in fact, we need to intensify it, because, without firm action now, progress will stall. The international fund is due to start disbursing money soon, but it is woefully underresourced. There is a real fear that it will be bureaucratic and inefficient and, of most concern, that it will operate in a way that increases the indebtedness of global south countries. This, then, is a time to raise our voice again for the principle of loss and damage and for the quantum of funding.
Of course, here, we must put our money where our mouth is by protecting our own climate justice fund and the way in which funding is made available. On the latter point—the how—we should champion our own approach. The projects that are being funded by the Scottish Government are seen by international partners as prototypes for the world. It is the principles that underpin those projects that we must urge the international fund to follow.
First, funding must be in the form of grants, not loans. It would be unconscionable for loss and damage funding to add to already unsustainable debt burdens. Secondly, funding must not come tied up in strings. Communities must be empowered to devise their own solutions to the crisis. Thirdly, funding must cover non-economic as well as economic loss and damage. Loss of heritage, culture and traditional ways of life are no less devastating than loss of infrastructure.
The world is at a critical juncture on both climate action and climate justice, and there are many who would like to see us go backwards. It is therefore crucial that Governments such as ours continue to be strong, principled, practical and resolute in pushing progress forward. I know that the cabinet secretary will be stalking the corridors at COP30, using her voice, her experience and the hard-won credibility of the Scottish Government to help to get the world back on the right track. I wish her well.
Effectively tackling climate change and ensuring climate justice are vital imperatives that matter for the peace, security and prosperity of all of us.
19:17
I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on securing today’s debate. I agree with her, on this occasion, that we all want to see a cleaner, greener Scotland. However, we must be honest about how we get there. In particular, we must be honest about the cost to our communities and our economy.
The motion before us paints Scotland as a global climate leader. It harks back to the days when it was claimed that world leaders were on the phone asking for advice. It references COP26, the loss and damage fund, and Scotland’s contribution of £2 million. Although symbolism matters, what really counts is delivery—delivery of emissions reductions here at home, delivery of affordable energy for our people and delivery of a fair transition for the workers who have powered this nation for decades.
Right now, the Scottish Government is failing—a Scottish Government that Nicola Sturgeon led in a failed experiment of coalition with the Greens. We have missed eight out of the past 12 annual climate targets. The landfill bill ban has been delayed again. Rural communities are being asked to shoulder the burden of having monster pylons cutting through our countryside, while city ministers preach about climate justice from the comfort of Holyrood.
Thousands of skilled oil and gas workers in the north-east—my constituents—are being told that their jobs are the price of that virtue signalling. The Scottish National Party Government still has a presumption against new oil and gas—something that was reiterated by Nicola Sturgeon tonight. It has failed to back Rosebank, Cambo and Jackdaw, and it is overseeing the loss of thousands of jobs, many of which are in the north-east. Where is the justice in that?
Let me be clear: I support our journey to a more sustainable future, but that journey must be realistic and just, and it must put jobs first. It cannot be built on shutting down our domestic energy industry before the alternatives are ready.
The UK’s oil and gas sector is one of the most highly regulated and lowest carbon producing in the world. If we switch it off overnight, we will not cut emissions; we will just offshore them, along with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Scots.
We need a managed transition, not an ideologically driven cliff edge. That means supporting the north-east, not abandoning it. It means investing in carbon capture, hydrogen and renewables alongside responsible oil and gas production—a view shared this week by Scottish Renewables—and it means recognising that energy security and affordability are not optional extras but are the foundations of any credible climate strategy.
The motion talks about international climate finance and global justice, but we should remember that there is also a duty of justice for the people of Scotland. Families have rising energy bills, farmers face uncertainty and local residents see their landscapes being scarred by mega-pylons that they neither asked for nor benefit from. They all deserve a fair hearing too, but we know that the cabinet secretary would rather meet with big business or jet around the world than talk to her own constituents.
We must deliver climate action that works with communities, not against them, which means proper consultation, realistic infrastructure plans and a focus on innovation, not imposition. Leadership on climate change is not about writing cheques or hosting conferences. It is about taking your people with you when, right now, too many feel that they are being left behind.
Let us play our part internationally, but let us also get our own house in order. Let us meet our targets, protect Scottish jobs and build the new energy economy from a position of strength, not self-inflicted weakness. That is how we will meet our commitments and become a leader on the global stage and it is how we will ensure that Scotland reaches its climate goals without damaging our communities and economy in the process.
19:21
I thank Nicola Sturgeon for securing this debate and very much endorse the terms of her motion, to which I added my name in support.
I welcome the debate because there has been a growing tendency of late for some in the chamber to scoff at or eschew the notion that this Parliament should discuss how we support the global south. It is of the utmost importance that we debate those matters. Nicola Sturgeon mentioned the First Minister’s recent visit to Malawi and Zambia, and the Oxfam Scotland briefing for this debate speaks positively of that visit and explains why it is important for Scotland to engage in such international activity. There has long been a consensus that we should support such activity which, we should remind ourselves, goes back to before the SNP’s time in Government and was, in many ways, begun by Jack McConnell. I hope that we can once again reach a consensus that it is important for the Scottish Government to engage in such activity and for Parliament to deliberate on it.
The context for this debate is COP30, which begins next week and is a reminder of the need for collective global action. I very much share Nicola Sturgeon’s concerns about the anti-science rhetoric that is creeping into our political discourse and should be tackled head on. I am sorry to say that we are hearing some of that even in this place, so we should raise our voices against it whenever we hear it.
The other context speaks more widely to our ability as a country to contribute to meeting those challenges. It is important to look back to COP26, when the world looked to Glasgow and Nicola Sturgeon provided real leadership for the Scottish Government. I was at the margins of COP26 and was pleased to be able to represent the Government at a few events. That £2 million contribution to the historic loss and damage fund was a clear demonstration of Scotland, and the Scottish Government’s, commitment to recognising our historic obligations. There is a moral imperative for us to contribute in that way. As Nicola Sturgeon referred to, it is about reparations; it is also in our own enlightened self-interest.
Earlier today, at the Criminal Justice Committee, the chief constable spoke to us about some of the challenges in Scotland that arise from global geopolitical events. One of the contributors to global instability is our lack of interaction to try to find improvements for the global south. So, we should think about it not only as a moral imperative but as something that it is in our own direct self-interest to act on.
As with all such things, this debate is short, so I will not go into great detail. The Oxfam briefing lays out some of the areas of concern in the great claims that rich countries have made about their contributions. They claim to have been able to mobilise
“US$116bn in climate finance for 2022, but the real value ... is only US$28-35bn”,
less than a third of the pledged amount.
As a result of the fact that nearly two thirds of climate finance has been made as loans, often at standard rates of interest without concessions, climate finance is adding more each year to developing countries’ debt, which now stands at $3.3 trillion. Those are not sustainable solutions to sustainability challenges.
That is something that COP30 must tackle head on. Not only must the world respond collectively, but Scotland must play its part too.
19:26
I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon for securing this debate.
Loss and damage is destruction that goes beyond what people can adapt to: when floods wash away homes, when crops fail year after year and when rising seas swallow villages. It is what happens when climate change pushes communities past the point of recovery.
As a member of the cross-party group on Malawi, I have heard directly from communities that have suffered losses. In Malawi, more than 80 per cent of people live in rural areas and rely on farming to survive, but storms and droughts have devastated crops, impacting on people’s incomes and pushing families deeper into poverty.
In Pakistan, although communities are still recovering from the massive floods that they suffered in 2022, they have had severe floods every year since. Their Government had to borrow $400 million to repair damaged homes and infrastructure
Climate change is overwhelmingly driven by the richest in society and by the historical and current emissions of the global north, but it is the poorest communities in the global south that are paying the price. Last week, I hosted a “Creative for climate justice” event, organised by Oxfam and Christian Aid, with primary school students who showed us their inspiring art. Their powerful and effective message was that climate justice is social justice.
Like others, I have been raising the issue of loss and damage for years in the Parliament: in committee sessions, at events and in motions in the chamber. I remember asking in 2021, before COP26, why Scotland was not showing leadership on the third pillar of the Paris agreement: loss and damage. To the credit of the then First Minister, Scotland did show that leadership at COP26 by being the first country in the global north to pledge dedicated funding—£2 million—to address loss and damage. That was a landmark moment. It sent a message across the world that wealthy nations can, and should, take responsibility for the harm caused by their emissions.
However, we cannot rest on the achievements of COP26. The world has moved on, the challenges have got bigger and, in Scotland, we have stalled at time when we need to be progressing faster. In April, the Scottish Government scrapped its climate targets, abandoning our formerly agreed-on ambitions. That has let down communities in Malawi, the Pacific and the global south that are already experiencing the climate emergency. We have failed to meet climate targets not only in eight of the past 12 years, but in nine of the past 13 years. We need action urgently. No pressure on the cabinet secretary, but we need a plan that will work, will be ambitious and will reduce our emissions—one that is not just about headlines but that makes real change in our communities.
Loss and damage are a massive issue. The fund agreed for it at COP29 was an important step, but much of it in the form of loans. As colleagues have said, that means the poorest countries are forced into debt to pay for the damage caused by others. That is not acceptable.
Scotland has shown that it is possible to deliver targeted, life-changing support through our climate justice fund. For example, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund’s £500,000 project in southern Malawi is helping communities to rebuild after tropical storm Ana and cyclone Gombe. The difference that the funding has made is profound, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed.
COP30 in Brazil begins next week. We have a chance to show that Scotland’s commitment to climate justice is not fading. We should use our voice internationally to push for a loss and damage fund that is accessible, transparent, and is based on grants, not loans.
Huge numbers of my constituents are calling for action. At our Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference on climate last month, the vulnerability of low-lying island countries was highlighted. That is an issue now, not for the future. We need to reflect on how we support low-income and vulnerable countries to develop new climate resilience and to use the opportunities that come from renewables, for example, to benefit them. Loss and damage is not just about rebuilding what has been destroyed: it is about a fair transition, justice and solidarity. We need to think about what kind of world we want to build for future generations.
19:31
In 2021, the world came to Glasgow for COP26. Amid the noise of pledges and the hum of negotiations, something truly historic happened; not in the official halls of power, but in the moral leadership that was shown by Scotland. We became the first country in the world to commit funding for loss and damage. We recognised that the climate crisis is not only about carbon—it is about justice. I am so grateful for, and I pay tribute to, Nicola Sturgeon for her determination then, and her on-going commitment to loss and damage funding now.
The first £2 million, later expanded to £10 million, was not a grand act of charity. It was an act of solidarity and reparation. It said to communities in Malawi, Ethiopia, and South Sudan, “We see you; we hear you; and we will not look away.” That decision mattered. It built the momentum that led to the establishment of the global loss and damage fund at COP27—a fund that will, for the first time, help those who are living with the irreversible consequences of a crisis that they did not cause.
Scotland’s courage helped to open the door. However, opening the door is not the same as walking through it. The fund remains dangerously underresourced. Communities are still waiting for support as their homes are flooded, their crops fail and their futures disappear. Every tonne of carbon that is emitted and every missed emissions target add to the loss and damage that are borne by the poorest.
This is our challenge: to make good on the promise that began in Glasgow and to ensure that Scotland’s leadership continues not as symbolism, but as substance. We can do that by joining the fill the fund campaign, which is pressing the world’s richest nations to make grant-based donations and ensure that there is direct access for the communities that are most affected. We can do that by establishing a centre of excellence for loss and damage in Scotland, which will link our universities, non-governmental organisations, and our partners in the global south to drive innovation and justice. We can do that by matching our words with action at home and maintaining our international development fund at £15 million a year, increasing the climate justice fund to the same level, and making polluters pay through measures such as a private jet tax, or other mechanisms that will link our high-carbon economy to its real human costs.
The climate emergency is not some abstract future. It is happening now in droughts that destroy livelihoods, in the floods that wash away graveyards, and in the trauma of families being forced to leave their ancestral homes. It is an emergency that is rooted in inequality: the richest 1 per cent of humanity produces more emissions than the poorest two thirds combined.
That is not a failure of technology—it is a failure of politics and of justice. Let Scotland once again stand on the side of justice. Let us back the call from the most climate-vulnerable nations for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, which is a bold, fair plan to phase out fossil fuels and ensure that no worker or community is left behind.
At COP26, I said that climate justice is about more than emissions; it is about who we stand with and who we choose to protect. That remains true today. If Scotland is to be a good global citizen, our responsibility does not end at our borders. It extends to Ekules in Ethiopia, whose goats were replenished through Scottish support, and to the children in Zomba, Malawi, who can now return to school after floods. Their resilience is our legacy—let us honour that legacy.
As the writer Arundhati Roy once said,
“Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
Let us make that world breathe more freely, through justice, through solidarity and through the courage and compassion to act as though that better world depends on us, because it does.
19:35
I thank Nicola Sturgeon for lodging her timely motion. It has been a great pleasure to hear her talk about issues that, as a former First Minister, she has led on in the past. Indeed, she championed and was the first mover on loss and damage. I am sure that she knows this, but everywhere I go in my role as Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, whether it be to conferences such as climate action week in New York or last year’s COP in Azerbaijan—and I expect this to be the case at next week’s conference in Belém, too—the legacy of what she achieved at COP26, especially in relation to loss and damage, is mentioned again and again, because we were the leaders on that.
I would like to say that it has caused a domino effect in many other countries and economies, and that they have realised that they should give grants rather than loans and provide loss and damage funds. Unfortunately, it has not quite happened that way. I continue to call for other economies—larger economies than ours—to stump up some cash rather than just make pledges, if I can put it that way. I might be more articulate in my choice of words when I am in Belém, but, in effect, that is what it comes down to.
The impacts of climate change are clear to see, not just around the globe in places such as the global south, but at home, too. Just last week, we saw the impacts of hurricane Melissa, which left a trail of destruction across the Caribbean. The devastating scenes that we saw in Cuba and Jamaica are a stark reminder that climate change disproportionately affects the world’s most vulnerable communities—those that are the least resilient. We recognise that, as well as being the most impacted, those communities have done the least to cause the problem. Indeed, many members have made the same point.
Are we going to preside over people being displaced from their homes? Are we going to turn our backs on people who have never benefited from the industries and lifestyles that have caused that devastation? I agree with Nicola Sturgeon, Sarah Boyack and Maggie Chapman on that point. We must not turn our backs, and we must encourage other economies to take the same approach. The most vulnerable people in those communities, especially women and children—those who are already marginalised—are the ones who suffer the most.
To those people who care only about what happens within the borders of the country that they represent, I say that it is false to say that none of this has an impact on them. We could see whole nationalities being displaced. That would become a catastrophic situation globally, not only for those communities and nationalities that could no longer remain in their homelands, but for the global north, which would have to deal with the impact of that. I urge people to think about that. We must all be global citizens. We cannot afford to see countries disappearing—I am thinking of places such as Vanuatu—and whole populations having to move.
Our climate justice approach recognises the role that developed countries such as Scotland have played, historically, in causing climate change. Maggie Chapman said that the current situation is “rooted in equality”, and I absolutely agree. As Jamie Hepburn mentioned, we also acknowledge our moral responsibility to address the loss and damage caused by the impacts of climate change.
As I have said, COP26 was a real moment in time. The Scottish Government became the first global north Government to commit £2 million of funding to deal with loss and damage, but what has that funding done? It has allowed whole communities and individuals to build back after devastation. In some places, it might not even be just one moment of devastation; some communities might have had to rebuild schools, homes and farms multiple times. It is a moral imperative, but I agree with Jamie Hepburn that it is also of great importance for global stability.
However, we should also acknowledge that that amount of money falls far below what is needed to address the scale of the issue. I have to be honest: the COP in Azerbaijan last year was my first, and I felt quite dismayed. Eventually pledges were made, but I wonder how many of those pledges have resulted in money going to developing countries. It is a sad indictment of the large economies that they feel able to pledge money but do not actually deliver it.
As many members have mentioned, in the past month, the First Minister visited Malawi and Zambia, where he met communities that are living at the front line of climate change—communities that are facing alternating drought and flooding from tropical storms and cyclones. He listened to their stories and heard how climate change can impact every part of people’s lives and the deep injustice at the heart of climate change.
Tackling non-economic loss and damage is a key part of addressing those injustices. From the Bay of Bengal to the Pacific Islands to sub-Saharan Africa, we are supporting communities to address the impacts of climate change that cannot be easily quantified, such as the loss of biodiversity and culture and the mental health impact of losing one’s home time and again. Community-led projects are putting women, young people and indigenous peoples at the heart of decision making. They are being empowered and funded to build back better after heart-wrenching devastation. It has never been more important for us to stand in solidarity with global south countries, and we remain steadfast in our commitment that loss and damage funding should be provided in the form of grants, not loans. I very much agree with Sarah Boyack on that point.
We are committed to equitable and fair climate finance and to exploring innovative sources, to ensure that the needs of the global south are met. If we do not do that, the world as a whole will suffer. That is not virtue signalling or whatever it was that Douglas Lumsden called it, and it is not just a moral imperative. It is a global sustainability issue.
The campaign is called cancel debt, choose hope, and I absolutely agree. The crisis that we face is great, but it is not insurmountable if the large economies of the world give just a small fraction of their money to assist those in greatest need. It is an investment not only in their future, but in ours.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of the Parliament.
Meeting closed at 19:42.Previous
Decision Time