Climate Change
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4507, in the name of Ross Finnie, on climate change.
I am glad to say that today's debate is the third occasion on which Parliament has debated climate change in the past 18 months. Given the scale and immediacy of the challenge, such regular examination of the issue is appropriate.
It is often said that climate change is the greatest threat that our planet faces, but we are sometimes less clear about what Scotland can do to help tackle it. The theme for world environment day—which was on Monday—was deserts and desertification. That highlights one of the reasons why climate change is such a grave threat. Climate change is turning the dry lands that cover more than 40 per cent of the earth's land and which are home to a third of the world's population into deserts, thereby exacerbating the poverty that the inhabitants of those areas already suffer. That is but one example of why climate change is the most serious threat that we face. It has the potential to devastate and destroy the lives of millions of people, most of whom have done almost nothing to contribute to the problem.
As a developed nation, Scotland has contributed to the problem. Although we are only a small country that is responsible for around 0.2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, per person our emissions are about twice the global average. In other words, our carbon footprint is too big. We therefore have a responsibility to change our ways and to lead by example, in line with the principles of sustainable development and environmental justice. We must cut our emissions significantly over the coming decades and adapt to the impacts of climate change, because no matter how successful global efforts to reduce emissions are, some climate change is now inevitable. The developing world will suffer the worst impacts, but the consequences for Scotland could be serious.
Scotland has a good record when it comes to emissions reductions. Between 1990 and 2003, our carbon dioxide emissions fell by more than did those of any other part of the United Kingdom. If we take account of removals by carbon sinks—the absorption of carbon by our trees and soils—our net greenhouse gas emissions declined by 14 per cent. All that was achieved during a period in which our economy grew by 29 per cent.
Our record is better than that of 13 of the 15 European Union member states that signed up to the EU Kyoto target and it is a positive base on which to build. However, we recognise that much more needs to be done if we are to transform Scotland into a vibrant, low-carbon economy. Everyone in Scotland must be encouraged to play their part and the Executive must show leadership.
I am sure that the minister is aware that offshore wind has great potential to reduce our overall carbon footprint. Can he throw any light on the problems that exist in relation to the roles of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive in the consent process for offshore wind developments? My understanding is that the industry is being pushed from pillar to post on the issue and that although responsibility for the matter will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, that has not yet happened. The process needs to be accelerated so that some of the huge potential of offshore wind farms can be released.
I agree entirely with the member that offshore wind has huge potential. He is correct to say that we have secured agreement that the matter should be transferred to our responsibility. All of us regret that the issue has not been resolved as quickly as it should have been. My colleague Nicol Stephen is anxious that it should be resolved very quickly, so that we can get over the problems that Bruce Crawford highlighted. We must be able to give the industry a clear signal that it can develop in a way that will make a further contribution in the sphere of renewable energy.
The new climate change programme, "Changing Our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programme", is a serious response to this serious and urgent challenge. It sets out how we plan to tackle change in a sustainable way to create a stronger, healthier and more just society and a more productive, competitive and sustainable economy. It makes clear the importance of us all changing our ways. The new programme identifies for the first time the Scottish share of UK climate change commitments. That is the amount of carbon savings that Scotland must deliver through its devolved policies to match savings from all devolved policies in the United Kingdom programme, on a per capita basis.
Is the minister concerned, as I am, that we could meet the so-called Scottish share target even if emissions were still rising in Scotland?
That will depend on the second element of the programme. As we have indicated clearly, we hope that, as well as managing the total amount of our contribution to the savings, we will be in a position to talk about carbon savings. I will address that issue later. We definitely intend to match both elements of the policy, to ensure that the possibility to which the member alludes does not materialise.
Despite the reservation that has been expressed, it is important that we can now disaggregate the figures and see that we can achieve more than the estimated 1.7 million tonnes of carbon savings that are required of us. We have set ourselves the target of an additional 1 million tonnes of carbon savings, to demonstrate the level that we wish to reach. The fact that we have mapped out in our new programme how we will meet the target shows that it is not an unrealistic aim. When carbon savings from reserved policies are added to the Scottish target, we expect annual carbon savings in Scotland of 3.8 million tonnes by 2010. To put that in context, Scotland's total net emissions in 2003 were 14.9 million tonnes.
The programme makes some important new commitments to support the target. It commits us to identifying total carbon savings from all energy efficiency measures in the forthcoming Scottish energy efficiency strategy, as a further contribution to the target; to developing a renewable heat strategy and a biomass action plan to ensure strong market development in those areas and additional carbon savings; to improving the energy standards in our building regulations; to determining the contribution that the transport sector will make to the Scottish target, as part of the national transport strategy; to delivering a significant amount of carbon savings through the forestry sector and to developing a climate change action plan for Scottish agriculture; and to assisting our local government colleagues to develop local authority climate change programmes.
Climate change is a truly cross-cutting issue, and there are many opinions about how we should secure our aim. I was reassured by the positive response that the programme received from Scotland's environmental lobbies, which welcomed the setting of the Scottish target and our commitment to report annually to the Parliament on progress. We will not meet the Scottish target unless all sectors contribute, including sectors in which emissions are currently rising. We must ensure that we deliver the savings that are required to meet the target in the most sustainable and cost-effective way.
I know that members have concerns about aviation, a sector in which emissions continue to increase. I want to make two points on aviation. First, we must recognise that, given the way in which our employable population is developing and the intellectual capital that it possesses, it is vital that Scotland should be able to trade that intellectual capital internationally. Secondly, that imperative does not mean that we should allow unfettered growth in general aviation emissions.
Along with the UK Government, we continue to press for the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme, whilst not ruling out the use of any other economic instrument. Such a move will assist in the development of an internationally agreed methodology for reporting international aviation emissions, which is currently lacking.
Will the minister expand on that point? Would aviation emissions include the emissions that are registered to each airline, depending on the national base of the airlines, or would they be linked to airport traffic within countries?
The proposal does two things. First, it tackles all aircraft in Europe—the issue that remains to be resolved is the landing of aircraft from America. An absolute target would therefore be set in terms of the total amount of emissions coming from air traffic. That will, undoubtedly, have an impact on price but if the problem is dealt with on an international basis, we will not render the UK uncompetitive. It is important for us to be able to trade internationally.
To answer the point that was raised by the Green party, I had hoped that the emissions up to 2020 would be included in the climate change programme. Unfortunately, however, it was not possible to disaggregate the UK projections in time. Once those projections are available, we will compare them with the Scottish share and Scottish target to determine the impact that Scotland's climate change programme will have on overall emissions. That will allow us to ensure that our approach is sufficient to meet the long-term challenge.
The plan sets out route maps. We have made announcements about the fact that our views have changed on renewables; about the consultation on the national transport strategy; and about the research that Scottish Natural Heritage is doing on the species that are most at risk. We have announced our commitment to carbon proof Executive climate change policies, and formal mechanisms are being drawn up to ensure that we are able to do that.
We must communicate the climate change message clearly and as effectively as we can to all those who are engaged in the process, so that we can get buy-in from all sectors of Scottish civic society.
We believe that we can take further the work that we have done and continue to engage those member states who are interested in this matter. We are committed to progressing and delivering on our climate change programme. I believe that we are taking seriously our international duty in relation to climate change.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication of Changing Our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programme as a serious response to a serious challenge; notes the identification of the Scottish Share of carbon savings from devolved policies across the United Kingdom and the setting of the first ever Scottish Target to exceed that share; welcomes the commitment to report annually to Parliament on progress on implementing Changing Our Ways and, in the longer term, to submit the programme to an independent audit; recognises the importance that must be accorded to adapting to the unavoidable impacts of climate change, and agrees that mainstreaming climate thinking, through the carbon proofing of new policies and measures and through communication, is vital to ensuring an effective climate change response.
The Scottish National Party welcomes the debate, which concerns something that might be the biggest threat to humanity in the 21st century. Members from all parties must agree on the scale of the challenge that faces our society if we are to curb global warming and prevent the devastation that could take place across the planet as a result of climate change. Further, all parties must agree that human activity is contributing hugely to global warming and that it is the duty of the Parliament to show leadership to Scotland, the rest of Europe and the planet.
As the minister said, quite rightly, our message must be that Scotland can make a difference. We are a small country and many people are cynical and believe that there is not much that we can do to influence climate change. However, it is our duty to do what we can. We have a moral responsibility not only to future generations of Scots, but to the rest of the planet, particularly to the vulnerable communities that are always the first to feel the brunt of extreme weather events that occur as a result of climate change. Of course, we must remember that Scotland is not immune in that regard, given the tragic events that have occurred in this country in recent years as a result of extreme weather.
The SNP welcomes the publication of the Government's climate change programme. Again, the programme is a boost for and a vindication of the idea of having a Scottish Parliament: if there were no Scottish Parliament, there would be no climate change programme for Scotland. Within the limitations in the context of devolution, we welcome the fact that a target will be set for reducing carbon emissions in Scotland and that a Scottish share will be established of the commitments in the UK programme. We also welcome the fact that the commitments that the Government in Scotland makes will be independently audited.
Parliament has a duty to hold ministers to account. We welcome the Minister for Environment and Rural Development's commitment that climate change proofing will take place throughout all Government departments. The mainstreaming of climate change policies is important. We must reach a stage at which all ministers report to the Parliament annually the carbon savings and costs of their policies. That is the best way for the Parliament to hold ministers to account and we hope that that will happen sooner rather than later.
Would the member welcome a carbon costing of removing tolls from the Tay and Forth bridges?
As I said, we should be told the carbon costs and savings of all policies. That includes transport policies. I will return to transport in a few moments.
Climate change is not just a threat to Scotland, but an opportunity because transforming our economy into a low-carbon economy will have massive economic and social benefits. We have the technologies and we can gain tens of thousands of jobs if we take a lead and put in place the necessary measures as soon as possible.
Scotland's track record on emissions is not impressive, especially given our enormous potential to become the renewables capital of Europe. Of the 25 members of the European Union, only nine other countries have higher per capita emissions than Scotland. The Scottish Executive's record is poor, as were the records of the previous UK Governments that ran Scotland. We hear that net greenhouse gas emissions fell by 14 per cent between 1990 and 2003. On the face of it, that is impressive, but as the minister's document says, that reduction is due to industrial decline in Scotland and the closure of massive plants such as Ravenscraig. It is not due to the Executive or previous UK Governments putting in place proactive measures to cut emissions.
Energy accounts for 37 per cent of emissions in Scotland and is therefore the biggest contributor. It is embarrassing that England has made a bigger reduction in its emissions than Scotland, yet Scotland has the biggest potential to cut emissions and the biggest potential for renewable energy.
Would the member care to explain why it is embarrassing that, prior to that figure starting as the data point, Scotland did not have a dependence on coal burning? What is embarrassing about us not engaging in a dash for gas? Therefore, why is it embarrassing that Scotland's position was better before we started and that the figure that the member mentioned includes the dash for gas?
I can tell the minister why it is embarrassing. He and his Government have been in power for seven years—since the Scottish Parliament reopened—but that time has been wasted. We have not caught up with other countries that have clean technologies and, in particular, clean energy production. Had we had ministers who were proactive, we could be where many of those countries are now.
The Government made great play of the fact that it has announced an investment of £20 million over two years in renewable energy in Scotland, but that is chicken-feed in comparison with what is required to transform Scotland's energy sector into a low-carbon sector. Twenty million pounds equates to 1 per cent of the cost of building a nuclear power station. Scotland can be in the lead if the Government gets behind the major projects on clean energy production that are taking place. We can get into the lead and we could have an impressive record.
The building of the hydrogen plant at Peterhead is exciting. It will be the biggest industrial hydrogen plant in the world and will produce carbon-free electricity, but the project requires Government support and the Government must get behind it.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry. I would love to take an intervention, but I am running out of time.
We have the potential for clean coal technology in Scotland and the Government must get behind that, too. If we want to reduce drastically carbon emissions from the energy sector, carbon storage offers immense opportunities for Scotland, given our geographical location and the North sea. The UK Government has announced that it will invest £25 million in developing carbon storage, but Norway—a small country of 5 million people—has announced that it will invest £162 million in that technology. On carbon storage, we need to up our game.
Energy efficiency is another major route to cutting emissions, yet we are still waiting for the Government's energy efficiency strategy. It was promised in 2004 and again in 2005, but we are nearly halfway through 2006 and we still await it. We need a high-profile energy efficiency agency in Scotland that will be a one-stop shop that can be accessed by people outside the Parliament who do not know where to obtain advice about energy efficiency.
I wanted to discuss many other issues, but I am running out of time. The Government must avoid gesture politics. Many schemes that are up and running are underfunded. If the Government really wants to tackle climate change and to transform Scotland into a low-carbon economy, we need real resources. We should not spend billions of pounds on nuclear power; we should put money into transforming Scotland into a low-carbon economy. The Parliament should have the powers so that we can make the maximum contribution to tackling climate change and saving the planet.
I move amendment S2M-4507.3, to insert at end:
"recognises that Scotland requires many of the political powers currently reserved to the UK Government in order to build a low-carbon society and make a greater contribution to the global effort towards tackling climate change; regrets the ongoing delay in publishing the Scottish Executive's energy efficiency strategy; calls for the establishment of a single high-profile public sector organisation to provide a one-stop shop for the promotion of energy efficiency across all sectors; urges Scottish Ministers when reporting annually to the Parliament to publish the carbon costs and savings that have resulted from their policies, and rejects the view that new nuclear power stations offer a solution to climate change."
As the minister said, we have debated climate change several times. One theme that has developed over time is the consensus in the Parliament that a problem has to be addressed and should be addressed by consensual measures. The Conservatives will not oppose the minister's motion; we simply seek to add to it slightly.
It would be churlish of us to oppose the motion, given that at Westminster earlier this year, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party and Plaid Cymru signed a cross-party agreement on climate change. The five parties agreed that an independent body should be established to monitor and enforce year-on-year carbon reductions and to cut emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050. The body would publish an annual report, which would be debated in both Houses of Parliament. Under that Conservative initiative, long-term emission cuts would be guaranteed, whoever was in power. Aspects of that agreement are reflected in the motion, so it is entirely appropriate for us to support it.
I lodged a small amendment to raise an issue that I highlighted in a recent debate on architecture and to do so with the ministers whose responsibility it is to address my concerns. Scotland is an industrial nation. All its political parties are to some extent concerned about the redistribution of wealth and the provision of high-quality public services. For that reason, it is essential that Scotland's industry remains profitable and has a future and that we fight matters such as fuel poverty, which many of us have identified as a major problem.
When I looked through the Executive's proposals, I was concerned to ensure that whatever action we take passes the test of economic sustainability. When we choose to set targets that exceed those of our neighbours and when we choose to set a good example, as many of us wish to do, we should do so in a way that does not undermine the ambition to maintain growth in the Scottish economy and to maintain opportunities to create the wealth that will ultimately give us that high-quality public service.
Alex Johnstone will recall that the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report on climate change said that the business environment partnership suggested that
"the challenge can be considered as a win-win situation."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 2 February 2005; c 1588.]
As he signed up to that report, does he agree that tackling climate change can create jobs?
Indeed. I signed up to and fully agree with that report. However, it is essential to ensure that nothing that the Government or the Parliament chooses to do undermines the economic objective.
For that reason, I am concerned by today's announcement that the Liberal Democrats in the south have decided to change their tax policy radically. They propose a 2p cut in income tax—the lost revenue would be replaced primarily by increases in capital gains tax and a possible raft of green taxation. Perhaps that could be done in a way that would not undermine the policies that we wish to pursue, but I am concerned that, as with all other types of taxation, the least well-off would end up paying the highest proportion of their income in the new tax. If we do not move in the right direction, we might find that such a proposal would cost jobs and undermine our economy as a result.
When we progress down the road that is outlined in the programme, we must seek guarantees from the Executive that there will be continued opportunities to put public money towards the research and development that will be necessary to increase the opportunities in offshore wind and to create new opportunities in harnessing wind, wave and tidal power.
Does the member agree with the many people who believe that if we opt for new nuclear power stations in Scotland, we will undermine the case for investing in the renewables to which he refers?
That is the same logic that tells us that the way to teach children to swim is to drop them from a great height into deep water. I do not agree with that policy.
It is not my intention to debate the issues surrounding nuclear power. I have made my views on the matter clear on many occasions and will do so again in the future. We have always made clear our commitment to renewable sources of energy in Scotland and we continue to reiterate it today.
I have taken this opportunity to highlight my concerns about Scotland's economic well-being in the future. I believe that the Executive understands the issues. The Scottish National Party's amendment indicates that it, too, may understand the issues; unfortunately we cannot support the amendment because, as usual, it suggests that everything would be better in an independent Scotland. I am unable to agree with that view. I am less convinced that my views are reflected in the Green party's amendment, although I will listen with interest to what its members say in the debate.
I move amendment S2M-4507.2, to insert at end:
"and that all such measures must pass the test of economic sustainability."
Since we debated climate change for the first time in this Parliament in January 2005, there has been almost universal recognition that the crisis is the number 1 challenge that we face as a society. Since that debate, we have had the first public acceptance by the US Government that climate change is real and that it is caused by humanity. An excellent climate change inquiry report has come from Parliament and, at long last, both the Government at Westminster and the Executive have published climate change programmes. We have even had a national debate about whether David Cameron should buy a Lexus or a Prius to follow him on his bike to work.
We welcome "Changing Our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programme", as a first step to tackling the crisis in Scotland. Many of the actions within it could make significant cuts in emissions and we support them without criticism. We also acknowledge that the role of Government is difficult and that some policy areas, such as transport, present huge challenges to making the policy truly sustainable. However, now is not the time to hide from those challenges, to spin the perception that all is rosy when it is not and to pretend that hard choices do not have to be made.
It is absolutely imperative that we get to grips with the scale of the problem. It may be that we should encourage small, politically expedient actions in order to gain confidence, but at the same time we must not leave the big challenges hidden and unresolved. We must make steady year-on-year progress towards the goal of slashing our emissions by at least two thirds by 2050. That means hard choices for Governments as well as for individuals. The target is not just a political one. It is a target that has been set by the planet itself and it is a hard and immovable physical and political backstop. We must do it or else. It is not negotiable. It is a hard target that we must meet.
The Scottish climate change programme states:
"Scotland is making reassuring strides in reducing its own emissions".
However, I do not see the three to four per cent reduction year after year that is needed to stop dangerous global climate change. The reality is that emissions have not fallen since the First Minister came into office and that the progress that has been made since 1990 has been due largely to the closure of Ravenscraig. Energy and transport emissions are not falling: they are rising and are dragging down the progress that is being made by other sectors of society in cutting our total emissions.
The programme also states:
"The Scottish Executive has reviewed its strategic approach to tackling climate change and strengthened it."
Surely the most important thing that we must do to make progress is to get all Government policies facing in the right direction. However, there are worrying signs that the Executive has, in effect, given up on transport. Instead of strengthening the road-traffic reduction target, the transport strategy states:
"Our research suggests that it would be desirable to replace a traffic stabilisation target".
Meanwhile, the Executive opposed the Green amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which would have established a target for efficiency. In both the energy and transport sectors, the Executive has ignored the Environment and Rural Development Committee's recommendations. In both cases, the Executive has failed to strengthen its approach.
The member's challenge is that we have rejected the question of energy efficiency. Paragraph 5.21 of our programme document "Changing Our Ways" contains the statement:
"The effectiveness of the strategy will be measured through the carbon savings it delivers and a specific carbon savings target will be set within it".
Can the member explain to me why, through ordinary use of the English language, that does not imply the setting of a target?
I think that the minister has failed to read the Environment and Rural Development Committee's inquiry report. We challenged the Executive to set a target for home energy efficiency, but it failed to back that in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The minister needs to reflect on that failure.
We read also in the Executive's programme that its
"new Programme commits the Executive to a Scottish Target in devolved areas."
We welcome the shift in language towards measurable delivery, but the Scottish share and so-called target counts only the policies that make emissions fall and assumes that no other policies under Executive control will make emissions rise. That is clearly nonsense. The connection of renewable energy to the grid will not reduce emissions if demand for electricity goes up. An increase in the use of biofuel in cars will not reduce emissions if car usage is encouraged by building more roads.
It is entirely possible—this was the point in my earlier intervention—that we could meet the Executive's so-called target while emissions are still rising overall. We would be achieving absolutely nothing. Surely the minister, as a former accountant, should know better than anyone that looking at savings while ignoring expenditure is bad practice. It is simply not good enough for ministers to say that they do not have control over the policies that affect climate change and so cannot take responsibility. If we had a Tory Government that was busy slashing petrol taxes and abolishing the climate levy from the back of its Lexus, there might be an excuse, but we have a UK Government that backs an overall target for emissions, so why do not ministers in Scotland have the courage to adopt the same overall target as the UK? If they did not make the target because of Westminster policies, that would be clear in any analysis. The Executive has a target for economic growth that is determined mainly by global economic trends. Why not have a national, all-inclusive and overall target for climate change that is far more under our control?
It is time for the Executive to be honest about the scale of the problem that we face and about the impact of all Government policies on climate change. The Executive must bite the bullet and recognise that a Scotland that is to be fit for our children's future is one in which climate change and sustainable development must be at the heart of Government. All policies must point in one direction only in order to tackle the climate change crisis.
I move amendment S2M-4507.4, to leave out from "as a serious response" to end and insert:
"notes that CO2 emissions from Scotland have not fallen since the current First Minister took office; is concerned that Scotland's emissions reduction since 1990 lags behind that of England; notes that according to the Scottish Executive about half of Scotland's emissions reduction is due to the decline of heavy industry and not due to Executive policy measures; recognises that emissions from energy use and transport, accounting for over half of Scotland's emissions, have been increasing since 1990; is concerned that there are devolved policy measures that will result in greenhouse gas emissions that have been ignored by the Executive's Climate Change Programme, such as motorway building and subsidies for air transport which are likely to negate savings made under the Executive's Scottish Share; warns the Executive that unless the Scottish Share applies to all policy measures and is part of an identifiable overall target for emissions reduction it will be meaningless; calls on the Executive to implement fully the recommendations of the Parliament's Environment and Rural Development Committee's 5th Report, 2005: Report on Inquiry into Climate Change, including traffic reduction and energy efficiency targets; agrees with the Executive that mainstreaming climate thinking, through the carbon proofing of new policies and measures, is vital to ensuring an effective climate change response, and therefore calls on the Executive to implement carbon proofing immediately starting with all existing policies and projects."
It has taken us two centuries to reach what many believe could be a tipping point for the earth, but we do not have that amount of time, nor anything like it, to counteract what has been done. I hope that nobody here will deny that climate change is the greatest challenge that faces us and that we must address it swiftly. We need to persuade our fellow Scots that that is the case and we need to set clear directions as to how we can help to slow down the process and mitigate its effects, support people to change their lifestyles, and support the embryonic industries and businesses that are providing renewables—the green jobs dividend. I welcome Scotland's climate change programme, which sets out the timetable to address the issues, although I would like more assurances on the green jobs dividend.
We have a target, which is to reduce carbon emissions by 1.7 million tonnes by 2010, but how will we achieve that? How can we convince people who spend the evening watching a television programme about the Greenland glacier melting that leaving their television on standby all night is helping to cause that very event? How can we persuade people to install wood-fuel heating systems rather than oil or gas systems? How can we persuade people to love wind farms more and to put up with pylons? What about our love affair with the four-by-four or our demands for out-of-season vegetables? We need leadership and persuasion at all political levels—local, Scottish, UK and European.
Does Maureen Macmillan agree that there is potential mileage in the proposals that are coming forward from Balcas, in our joint constituency, which are about using renewable wood rather than oil or gas?
Yes. I will come to that later in my speech.
In the Highlands, the development of wind farms became the object of a vociferous and infectious paranoia that resulted in a quite wrong general perception that every hill would be covered in turbines and every valley would have a line of pylons. The death of Highland tourism was predicted in much the same way as it had been when the dams and pylons of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board were put in place in the 1950s. It did not happen then and it will not happen now. As well as setting back the renewables agenda—wind generation is a proven, ready-to-go technology—paranoia has made it difficult for some community groups, which could use the income from wind generation to good effect, to find local acceptance for their modest proposals. We have wind in abundance. The Portuguese, who have sun in abundance, are building 150-acre solar power stations on their hillsides. Will tourists stop going to Portugal? I do not think so.
The negative feelings about wind power have been reinforced by the perception that most wind turbines are imported and that there is little spin-off in the way of jobs. Amicus has been campaigning for many months to make it a condition of the award of a contract that the turbines must be manufactured in this country and, at last, there has been a breakthrough at European level. In March, the European Commission exempted electricity-producing utilities companies in Great Britain from the utilities directive, which makes it possible to develop local supply chains for the wind-generation industry. If engineering jobs are created locally, there will be greater acceptance of the intrusion of renewable technologies into the landscape. This is an opportunity that we must grasp, but we need support from the Executive and the Department of Trade and Industry to grow the sector in Scotland.
We also have great opportunities in the Highlands for other renewables, both in marine energy and in biomass. At a northern industries meeting—a business breakfast in Dingwall at the end of May—Simon Grey of AWS Ocean Energy in Alness predicted that wave-swing generators could supply 20 per cent of Scotland's energy by 2020. That is something that the nuclear lobby does not want to hear, but I will say it again. A wave-swing generator could generate 20 per cent of Scotland's energy by 2020. We need to challenge the Executive and the DTI to support such projects to the hilt if they are to succeed. I know that there is a £50 million marine research development fund, but is that sufficient? Other countries would be only too anxious to develop such projects, so it is a challenge for us to ensure that the sector stays here. It could keep two construction yards of the capacity of the one at Nigg in work at full stretch. Major wind farms could be located off the western northern isles, with each park of 50 devices generating power for 24,000 homes.
Maureen Macmillan mentioned wave power. I go along with what she says—I am sure that the potential is great. However, the technology has not been developed worldwide. Is not her projection for 2020 rather optimistic?
That is the point. We have a unique opportunity to develop the technology in Scotland and so to lead the world.
We need to build up local supply chains for a biomass industry. Renewables obligation certificates for carbon-neutral heating will help, as will the £3 million for micro-renewables. Balcas, of Enniskillen, recently gave a presentation at Parliament on its wood pellet manufacture. That plant, which uses timber from the west of Scotland, has enabled a central heating industry to grow up around it, from the manufacture of boilers to installation businesses. We want such clusters in the parts of Scotland where there is an abundance of timber.
Those parts of Scotland also happen to be the parts that are most dependent on expensive oil for heating. The Scottish Gas home survey pinpointed the Highlands and Islands as having the worst home carbon dioxide emissions because of oil dependency and poor insulation. If wood fuel and wood-fuel boilers were readily available, we would be able more easily to persuade builders to give customers the chance to use wood-fuel systems, and canny customers would be persuaded to choose them on long-term cost grounds.
I would have liked to address the issue of public procurement, but I have run out of time. We also need to consider freight traffic and whether we should use our coastal harbours more for goods that do not need to be transported swiftly.
I certainly share Maureen Macmillan's wish for practical action. I believe that here in Scotland we can set the standard and take the lead in 21st century environmental stewardship, which would not only showcase the progressive nature of Scotland's new democracy, but ensure massive economic benefits for our nation by carving out niche environmental markets to compete in the growing field of world-wide environmental business.
In saying that, I see a three-pronged practical approach to such environmental stewardship, involving the Scottish economy, society and environment. Safeguarding of the environment need not necessarily create conflict between economic advancement and ecology. For sustainable improvement, the three elements should be in harmony. In many ways, the problems that face rural Scotland illustrate that. Such problems are largely ignored in the Government's rural development plan, but a proper Scottish environmental strategy could and would address them. Increased use of biofuels and their production in Scotland would not only help the environment by reducing the use of fossil fuels, it would give another cash crop to Scottish farmers, who are now looking to diversify in the face of a fast-changing agricultural world.
Will Mr Welsh accept that farmers' genuine ambition to get involved in that trade is currently being thwarted by the fact that palm kernel oil can be imported so cheaply, which has a negative effect on our environment?
I share that concern and I have tried to help farmers to get involved in that market.
A farming industry that is more economically stable and less reliant on Government aid or subsidy will be the essential backbone of our rural economy and life. If the Scottish Government's forthcoming Scottish biomass action plan is to be of any use whatever, it will have to show clearly how the Government will give practical support to the biofuel industry and other related fledgling industries. I want to hear today what the Administration proposes and how it will fit into the overall pattern of Scottish future-proofed bio-industries.
I certainly hope that the Government moves away from the head-in-the-sand position that was given by Tavish Scott, who answered my question of 30 September 2005 by stating:
"The stocking of biofuels is a commercial matter for fuel manufacturers and retailers."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 September 2005; S2W-19408.]
That do-nothing, head-in-the-sand attitude will simply not do. Other Governments throughout Europe have long since realised that market-enabling laws are essential to help technologies obtain volume economies of scale and that, once capital costs are paid, that turns out to be a very good investment for the future. We must not miss out on such sustainable economics. Again, I refer the Government to the points that were made by Professor Bernard King of the University of Abertay about the necessity of linking greater Government funding to practical research, on which cutting-edge employment creation can be founded.
Proper management of environmental issues can and should link them with broader social and economic issues in raising Scottish living standards and improving lifestyle opportunities. In my constituency of Angus, climate change and environmental stewardship are matters that successive SNP administrations have championed. As part of its environmental action plan, Angus Council is committed to raising awareness of sustainable development, central to which is a process of changing attitudes and the recognition that changing attitudes leads to changing behaviour. The council is tackling issues such as waste management, energy conservation and transport use through a consistent and integrated programme for environmental sustainability throughout council strategy, policy and programme formulation, and in partnership with other local organisations such as the Angus Environment Trust, the local rural partnership, the biodiversity steering group, and the Tayside environment business forum.
Angus Council has demonstrated that environmental issues such as climate change cannot be disengaged from economic and social issues, and that solutions to environmental problems will help to address economic and social concerns. As a result, it has achieved a substantial reduction in the production of greenhouse gases in all residential properties, and more than 80 per cent of council housing stock has a high national home energy rating. It has also increased the use of renewable energy technology.
We do not need more reviews, consultations, theories or other central Government stalling tactics, but sound practical measures that produce results. Only if we nest strong environmental problems within a well thought out and co-ordinated series of policies will Scotland be able to meet the environmental challenges of the future. Given the current lack of co-ordination among the Executive's different policy initiatives, I am less than sure that that will be accomplished. Why do Scottish houses not have solar panels and other renewable energy sources in-built as a natural part of their construction?
Allied to the intellectual fire-power in our universities and higher education institutions and our industrial skills, we have all the natural advantages that are necessary in water, wind, solar and wave power to make Scotland the environmental research and production centre for Europe and the world. Using Scottish skills and Scottish resources, we could create employment in new future-proofed industries. What Scotland needs is a positive national effort in linking and co-ordinating policies whereby our national health service, local government, central Government, industry and other organisations become key to practical success. That is certainly achievable in a small country such as Scotland and it is an opportunity that must not be missed.
We lost out on the first hydrocarbon bonanza; we must not also fail to create an environmental economic Scottish success story. That should be everyone's target.
Apart from welcoming a committee report, I will focus on the practical aspects of water—its supply, security and use—that are not dealt with in the committee report.
That climate change is upon us now appears to be accepted worldwide—except perhaps by the Americans if "Panorama" is to be believed. Global warming is bringing about that climate change and its attendant problems, one of which is a developing worldwide shortage of potable water. Over recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the fact that some of our natural resources such as gas, oil and coal are finite. I believe that the next public awareness jump will be about just how precious our worldwide freshwater resources are.
Across the UK, America, Africa and the widening desert strips on each side of the equator, water tables are falling and groundwater supplies are at their lowest since the last ice age. Water is, in my view, about to become a much more valued and tradeable commodity, as the minister mentioned in his opening remarks. Consequently, we need to start examining more closely than we have ways of sustainably collecting, storing, treating and recycling water.
The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on water management is a good starting point. Paragraph 8.24 of the summary of recommendations states:
"We have seen insufficient evidence to convince us that the potential consequences of climate change are being adequately factored into long-term planning for water management, with due regard being paid to the inherent uncertainties. We therefore recommend that both Ofwat and the Environment Agency"—
obviously, those organisations deal only with England and Wales—
"take steps to make the process whereby such issues are addressed within long-term planning more transparent and open to scrutiny."
If such an approach is needed in England and Wales, I respectfully suggest to the minister that we also need to address those issues in Scotland.
Security of supply of water in the UK could well become a major issue within the next 10 years—worrying signs are already flashing up. In the south of England, drought orders are currently in place and inadequate water supplies are available for much-needed new house building. We in Scotland need to be aware of a developing UK and worldwide scarcity of water and we need to re-evaluate our views on water so that we see it as a precious resource.
Will the member give way?
If Mark Ruskell will forgive me, I would rather not give way as I have a lot to get through.
We are already creating river basin management plans, but it can be argued that we need to go further by creating regional spatial strategies with a view to storing more water for the future. The House of Lords report states:
"We believe that the construction of new reservoirs, and the enlargement of existing ones, for the purposes of public water supply are likely to be necessary in order to meet long-term water demand."
I believe that we in Scotland must also take note of that recommendation. We need to start looking again at creating new reservoirs in Scotland.
In addition, we need to use such stored water as an energy resource with a view to having schemes that offer a combined energy and water supply solution. Apart from the benefit of using increased hydro-electric power to provide a stable carbon-free energy source, we can play our part in securing water supplies in the UK and worldwide context.
Although a national water grid is perhaps not currently feasible, I believe that a spot market in water will emerge in the near future. As water becomes scarcer and even more valuable, such a market would enable boatloads of water to be delivered worldwide.
In spatial planning terms, we should note the climate change predictions that suggest that the north and west of Scotland will be the only areas of the UK where annual rainfall will be maintained, or even increased. I believe that, as of now, we should be looking at river basin management plans for the north and west of Scotland, with a view to developing increased water storage capacity.
In renewable energy terms, most people acknowledge that onshore wind farming, quite apart from its problems of back-up and intermittency, is on the verge of being over-developed as a sustainable resource. That is particularly the case as we seek to develop our tourism industry. At the moment, Government gives excessive support to wind farming through the renewables obligation certificates. A change of emphasis is required; Government needs to invest more in other reliable energy sources, of which combined energy and water schemes could be a part.
Of course, problems will need to be overcome in terms of finding sites where energy can be extracted from water and sites that are close enough to coastlines to allow the piping of water from shore to ship. There will also be problems in changing existing legislation and in providing connections to the grid. However, I believe that the proposal is worthy of Government investigation and support in terms of helping to resolve in a sustainable way the security of water and energy supplies. Given that Scottish Water's investment plans are already all but stretched to breaking point, the proposal offers a development opportunity for the private sector. Certainly, if one of the diversified utility companies were to invest in such a project in the north and west of Scotland, perhaps to supplement its own dwindling resources, it would do so in the knowledge that Government-funded and cash-strapped Scottish Water would be unable and unlikely to compete with it in the foreseeable future. The private sector would have no competition in this emerging combined energy and water niche market.
A feasibility study could be carried out to evaluate such a project and to make certain that the economics stack up; a pilot scheme could also be developed. Much work would need to be done before the proposal would be brought to fruition and the support and political will of the Executive would be required. However, I believe that combined energy and water projects could benefit Scotland economically and socially. In addition, they could also support areas of the UK and elsewhere in the world that are less well-off than Scotland is in terms of the already scarce commodity that is water.
I welcome the debate today and the Executive's commitment to addressing the problems of climate change and carbon emissions. I hope that my proposal for a new and different way of resolving some of the problems that we face in this regard provides further food for thought.
Most of the burgeoning emissions of carbon dioxide that cause climate change are a direct result of people such as us burning hydrocarbons in cars, aeroplanes, heating installations and, indeed, the power stations that provide electricity for just about every aspect of modern life.
Here in the developed world, we have been at it for a long time. We should not be surprised, therefore, that countries such as China and India are burning more coal, oil and gas in support of the better lifestyles that they want for their people. We cannot tell families that do not have a proper water supply or a fridge, let alone a car or a computer, that they should do without those things to prevent global warming.
Two big problems arise from the fact that we are burning so much hydrocarbon. As colleagues have repeated again and again in the debate, the first is that we are emitting vast quantities of carbon dioxide, which is causing global warming. Each year, three power stations here in little Scotland emit 18 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Secondly, we are depleting at a terrifying rate our finite resources of oil and gas. In just a few decades, we have used most of the oil and gas from the North sea. Our great-grandchildren will not forgive us for using up the reserves of oil that the chemical, pharmaceutical and other industries will need in future. Our great-grandchildren will not believe the fecklessness of the generation that allowed the world's dwindling stocks of precious oil and gas to be burned in power stations.
Like Maureen Macmillan and other colleagues in the Labour Party and other parties, I strongly support everything that the Executive is doing to promote energy efficiency, renewables and biofuels. I also support everything that it is doing to encourage greater use of public transport and its delivery of the specific objective of cutting carbon dioxide emissions. It is vital that we do so.
In fact, I urge ministers to go further. The slogan for the do a little, change a lot campaign is fine, but the time has probably come to do a lot and to press others to do likewise. The Executive needs to do everything that it is doing and more. That is not always easy, as I know from my experience of going against local objectors to wind turbines in my constituency.
Let us keep striving towards the Executive's ambitious target of 40 per cent of electricity generation from renewables. However, we must not become so obsessed with that 40 per cent that we forget about the remaining 60 per cent. If we fail to plan for the baseload generating capacity, there will be electricity shortages. I doubt that voters will be impressed by a Government that cannot keep the lights on.
The need for carbon-free and low-carbon bulk and micro-generation is immense. I agree with colleagues that Scotland can and should lead the way in supporting the development of technologies that are needed here and throughout the world for wave power, wind power, solar energy and the whole range of renewables and energy efficiency technologies—and yes, that list must also include nuclear technology.
Does the member agree that if we use nuclear power it is unlikely that there will be investment in green renewables?
That is a depressing suggestion. I do not see why we cannot have both, because the world and Scotland need both. We should be more ambitious.
The only way in which Britain's needs for electricity in the medium and long term can be met without continuing to pump tens of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year is to develop clean coal technology and replace aging generating plant with modern nuclear power stations. I will be blunt and say that that is going to happen, now that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has concluded that deep geological storage is the right way to deal with nuclear waste. The only question is whether that electricity generation industry will remain in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
No. I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
If we refused to allow new nuclear stations to be built at places such as Torness and Hunterston, the UK Government would build them in England instead and Scotland would become a major importer of nuclear electricity instead of being an exporter, as we are now. We would also sacrifice more than 1,000 Scottish jobs in the electricity generation industry. I do not want that to happen, so I am delighted that the First Minister will visit Torness on Monday to see the benefits of a good, modern generating station and to listen to the views of the people who work there.
Like Maureen Macmillan, Sarah Boyack and a range of members in the Labour Party and other parties, I will continue to support the drive for energy efficiency and renewables. However, members should make no mistake: we need nuclear too if we are serious about supplying electricity for the future as well as reducing disastrous emissions of carbon dioxide. It is not a case of either/or; we need both. Members of all parties should face up to that fact. We should start by rejecting the Scottish National Party amendment.
As members have said, climate change is one of the most significant issues that we face. Its impact pervades every aspect of society and the battle against it is unlike any other that humankind has faced. We must work with other countries, and Scotland can and should take a lead in tackling the root causes of climate change.
We cannot ignore the effects of climate change. Spring arrives three weeks earlier than it in did in 1978 and we have all seen the effects of climate change with our own eyes.
Does the member agree that the records on early springs seem to come mainly from the south and that early springs are not the experience in the north-east of Scotland?
In the Highlands, there are now species of butterfly that were completely unknown in the area when the member and I were children. That, if nothing else, demonstrates climate change, as the member would see if he cared to take a walk in my constituency.
The 10 warmest years since records began have been since 1990 and they include every year since 1997. Of course, the flip side of what I said to Mr Johnstone is that the warmer climate is affecting indigenous wildlife that is adapted to a colder climate.
Will the member give way?
Not at this stage.
Climate change is affecting traditional industry in the Highlands. People who used to earn a living from winter tourism in the Cairngorms lament the pitiful winter snows that hamper their means of earning a living. On a global scale, flooding and irregular storms wreak havoc on communities, industries and human life. That gives one a sense of foreboding about the disastrous effects of climate change. It is imperative that we address the issues now so that, as John Home Robertson said, future generations do not have to live with our mistakes.
As part of the partnership Government with the Labour Party, my party is contributing to tackling and managing climate change. Compared with England, we use more renewable energy and invest more in recycling. We have tighter building regulations, more radical strategic environmental assessments, more ambitious energy efficiency measures and a better approach to reducing the impact of flooding. The Executive works with the UK Government, but we in Scotland are ahead of the game, thanks to our partnership.
As we have heard, between 1990 and 2003, carbon dioxide emissions in Scotland fell by 8 per cent, which was faster than in any other UK country. Scotland's climate change programme sets an ambitious target to exceed our share of the UK carbon savings target by an additional 1 million tonnes in 2010, which is a big overachievement.
Will the member reflect on the fact that that so-called target counts only the reductions in emissions and does not count potential increases from policies such as the M74 extension, the Aberdeen western peripheral bypass and the air route development fund?
The member made that point earlier, but he cannot pass by the facts that I gave.
My party understands that environmental policies can complement and enhance economic growth. Greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland continue to fall, despite 29 per cent growth in the Scottish economy between 1990 and 2003. My party's manifesto gave a commitment to support growth in renewable energy manufacturing, which combines the objectives of creating economic growth and supporting the environment. Our outlook is practical yet forward thinking.
My colleague Mr Ruskell's party feels that, by 2020, 100 per cent of electricity can be generated from renewable sources, despite widespread opinion in the industry that even 40 per cent will be a difficult challenge. If the Greens and the Scottish National Party want to work together, they will have to consider how they can combine when the SNP has said up front that it wants to get every last drop of oil out of the North sea. Those two policies do not sit together happily, although, given the friendly relationship between my colleague Mr Gibson and my friend and his partner Eleanor Scott, perhaps they will show the way forward.
How do the Liberal Democrats intend to split the use of the oil that comes out of the North sea? We do not intend to burn it all—we intend many different uses for it.
I am sure that Rob Gibson and I will have an interesting debate on that during our homeward journey on the train. If all parties work together on the issue and try to bury party-political differences, that will lead to the best management of what is, as John Home Robertson said, a finite resource. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will curse us if we squander that resource.
Nicol Stephen recently announced details of a £20 million investment in the Executive's clean energy strategy, which aims to tackle climate change and make Scotland the renewable energy powerhouse of Europe. As Maureen Macmillan wisely said, Scotland has an opportunity to promote itself as a European leader in renewable energy technology, development and expertise, while lessening its dependence on costly non-renewable energy sources. My party supports urgent investment in clean coal technology and research into and development of renewable technologies. We also realise that energy conservation must be a major contributor to balancing energy supply and demand in Scotland.
As members from all parties have said, the issue is too important for us to duck—I give the Greens their due on that. If we get it wrong, not only will it affect society, it could undermine the future of our civilisation as we know it.
Any steps that are taken to address climate change are to be welcomed, but we are now past the stage of taking steps—we need to take massive leaps if we are to address the challenges facing the planet today. The minister, Richard Lochhead and others have talked about the enormous scale of the problem. Over the years, we have watched as the planet and its people have been blown around, washed away, gassed and poisoned as a result of pollution and climate change. As members have said, the poorest and most vulnerable people in society bear the brunt of climate change. At one time, the ravages of a chaotic climate could be seen only miles away, but they are now on our doorstep. There were warnings for a long time, but they were not heeded. Sadly, we are now simply firefighting.
There is now plenty of information. Public awareness is on the rise and people are taking action. Folk are recycling much more. We know that it is essential not to leave our televisions and videos in stand-by mode. Children in schools are learning about the world in which we live and about how to respect and protect the planet.
While the public are engaging and trying to do the best they can, big business is getting away with environmental murder and politicians are not keeping big business in check. The raping and pillaging of the planet in the name of profit is at the heart of the problem. Unless action is taken, the excellent efforts of the caring public will simply not be enough.
The living standards of the public are changing and they are demanding more energy and more space in which to live. We have seen the average number of people in each house in Scotland drop from three to two, which has created greater demand for energy. Is not there a problem that the public also must address?
I say to Phil Gallie that the public are addressing the problem and are doing their best. More can always be done, but unless we consider what big business is doing globally we will miss the point and take one step forward and two steps back. I will continue in this vein and perhaps enlighten Phil Gallie a wee bit.
We need a Government that will protect homes and communities in Scotland from environmental degradation, whether from pollution, climate change or landfill. In Scotland, as in the rest of the world, the poorest people have no choice but to live next to stinking landfill sites, where there are increased incidences of miscarriages, or on top of toxic waste dumps, where people must live with increased cancer risks.
The Executive's motion refers to what is
"vital to ensuring an effective climate change response."
Will Ross Finnie explain how the proposed M74 northern extension fits into that response? If it is constructed, it will plough through and pollute one of the sickest and poorest constituencies in Britain. It will bring 110,000 car journeys per day through built-up, urban Glasgow and increase people's reliance on cars. How does that square with the promises that have been made? The Scottish Executive continues to ignore underground pollution in Rutherglen, Cambuslang, Carmyle and Toryglen, but tells us that we should change our ways. That is hypocrisy. The M74 northern extension will throw pollution into the atmosphere and the Executive will not even make an effort to locate polluted sites and make them safe.
A special day for the environment is 5 June, when we remember and celebrate it and do our best to change it. That date is also my birthday. I have therefore brought a wish list to the Parliament, which I urge the minister to listen to.
We should invest in a properly integrated public transport system, a publicly owned railway system and freight rail that serves the needs of the people and the environment. There should be proper investment in renewable energy development by a publicly owned and publicly accountable energy company that encompasses all types of renewable energy. I say in particular to John Home Robertson—who is also known as nuclear man—that the Executive should get off the fence and unequivocally ditch the notion of nuclear energy. We should introduce energy efficiency measures in industry and business and in houses when they are being built to address fuel poverty. We should stop the ludicrous practice of building houses on flood plains and instead invest properly in river management. We should end the building of luxury golf courses for the rich, which are detrimental to the environment. Scotland is not a theme park.
I hear what the member says, but surely she recognises that golf courses such as that at Skibo in my constituency do a great deal to boost local economies and provide employment.
Rosie Kane is going into her final minute.
I am indeed, so I will get back to Jamie Stone rather than waste any more time by answering him. I will get him on the train home. [Interruption.] I did not mean anything sinister. I mean that I will have a debate with him in the same way as he will have a debate with Rob Gibson.
Our kids must have healthy food to eat. We should invest in organic farming to reduce the reliance on chemicals from the petrochemical industry and invest in locally grown food to reduce the number of miles that our food travels. In addition, will somebody please do something about the waste that is produced from packaging? There should be proper investment in reuse, recycle and reduce facilities rather than investment in landfill. I am sick, sore and tired of the ridiculous amount of packaging that we all have to drag home from the shops and which then lies in landfill sites and chokes the kids up the road. That is my wish list.
That sounds like a huge investment—I am sure that a lot of members think that it is—but in the long term it will bring a huge saving. We cannot spend too much when it comes to saving the planet. If we do not spend the money, we will all rue the day.
In previous debates on climate change, I have always focused on my constituency's potential in the renewable energy revolution. In her excellent speech, Maureen Macmillan exposed the hypocrisy of the nationalists regarding renewable energy. They are always demanding greater targets for and greater output from renewable sources, but at the same time they go round the length and breadth of Scotland chuntering and opposing wind farm developments. That is hypocrisy, of which they are expert exponents.
Will the member give way?
No thank you, Mr Lochhead.
I enjoyed Mr Jamie Stone's contribution, but I was waiting for him to reinforce the views expressed by the MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Mr John Thurso, regarding the construction of new nuclear power stations. Perhaps that was just an oversight by Mr Stone.
I want to raise a few issues regarding the built environment and how we should reduce its effect on the environment, and I will discuss my constituency's role in that process.
It is becoming generally accepted that architects are responsible to a considerable extent for the problem of carbon emissions, 40 per cent of which come from the built environment. Lest anyone think that this will be a tirade directed at architects, I say that architects will be key players in providing the world with a solution. The internationally renowned American architect Edward Mazria said:
"The building community is chiefly responsible for greenhouse gases and we have a unique and historic opportunity to reverse that for which we are responsible."
Architects would argue that energy engineering is not their prime responsibility, but we cannot deny that decisions made by architects at the earliest stages of building design have major energy implications over the life of buildings. The essence of the problem is that architects have been making decisions in the dark. They have had neither the skills nor the tools to foresee adequately the energy consequences of their designs. By the time engineers are brought into the process, it is often too late to back away from the most important design decisions. In addition, building regulations have hitherto not been framed sufficiently tightly in terms of energy and carbon emissions. That has provided more room for design manoeuvre than is required to protect our environment. Even when architects and engineers have created exemplary green building designs, the wider building industry and supply chain has frequently created further problems through products and building construction techniques that are energy inefficient.
This year may be the watershed year when such problems start to be addressed seriously. From the regulatory perspective, the European Union energy performance of buildings directive comes into force. The directive, which is implemented in the United Kingdom via building regulations, mandates that an energy certificate be prepared and displayed for new and existing large buildings.
We should be thankful that the professional institutions are playing their part. The UK Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers provide building design operation and energy efficiency standards that are used globally. A few months ago, they jointly and encouragingly released a statement in which they said that they
"reaffirm their joint commitment to developing and adopting energy efficient practices and resources, and call upon their members, governments, and colleagues in the building and related industries to likewise respond."
In December 2005, the American Institute of Architects called for a 50 per cent reduction in fossil fuels used to construct and operate buildings by 2010. The challenge for architects will lie in achieving that goal without adequate tools that factor energy into early-stage designs.
I am delighted to report that I was recently involved in the launch of a highly innovative and significant research and development project in my constituency that will result in a step change in new low-carbon design practices. The UHI Millennium Institute, in conjunction with Lews Castle College, is partnering a renowned world expert, John Fitzgerald Kennedy of Green Building Studio in California. They are working together to bring his groundbreaking internet technology to bear on the energy impact of architectural designs. The service will be fast, easy and free for all architects. It will empower them to make informed decisions about the energy footprint of buildings. It will be used for the first time in the UK in the context of the energy innovation zone that is promoted by the Western Isles community planning partnership. Kennedy and his partners in UHI—namely Dr Neil Finlayson and Donnie Macritchie—believe that the scale of the built environment energy problem can be addressed only by an internet-scale solution.
I had the privilege of introducing my colleague Sarah Boyack, in her capacity as convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, to people at Lews Castle College. I know that she was greatly impressed with the work being undertaken there. That reinforces the view that the energy innovation zone that the local authority has been promoting so aggressively is progressing on many fronts. We have manufacturing in Arnish, there are proposals for wind farms both large and small throughout the Western Isles and UHI is progressing the all-important research and development.
Scotland in general and its universities in particular have world-class expertise and are at the forefront of developments in the field of building energy. I am delighted that my constituency is now firmly placed at the forefront of such developments in the UK. I strongly recommend that we in the Parliament and colleagues in the Executive welcome the major initiatives to assist architects in the design process and continue to give the fullest support to projects that will reduce carbon emissions from the built environment. If we do that, we will play an important role in changing our ways and taking tough decisions. That will be the product of courageous political leadership.
All the members who have spoken agree that we have a problem and few people elsewhere would disagree, so it would be criminally negligent if society and government failed to take compensatory measures for the sake of present and future generations.
I am sure that no member of the Parliament wants there to be a repeat in Scotland of the tragic deaths that took place in France last year as a result of excessive heat. At a time when we are more used to having to deal with winter deaths and the problems of fuel poverty—on which neither Westminster nor the Executive has the right answers—it might seem unlikely that we will have to deal with the problems that France experienced. However, that is not beyond the bounds of possibility and we should put in place measures to prevent their occurrence. I say to Mr Morrison that architects must put in place heat regulation systems that can both keep heat in buildings and take it out of them.
Climate change is happening. Monitoring in Aberdeen has shown that the sea level has risen by 70mm over the past 100 years. We have seen the effects that that has had on the coastline—a vast amount of expensive work is now required to halt and reverse the erosion of the beach at Aberdeen. Other areas are subject to the same pressures. What review and long-term programme of action will the Executive put in place to protect the most vulnerable areas?
Rainfall patterns are changing. Although the amount of rainfall is likely to increase by between 10 per cent and 25 per cent in winter months, there could be a corresponding decrease in summer months. In that regard, I agree with John Scott and ask the Executive what review it has undertaken of water abstraction and storage schemes.
It is obviously easier to reduce Scotland's carbon footprint and its greenhouse gas emissions in some areas than in others. I do not suppose that even the minister or Alex Johnstone would claim to have the answer to the production of methane by cows, but I am sure that they will be aware that the Rowett Research Institute in the north-east is conducting research on the matter.
The Executive will need to help the energy supply industry with research and development on carbon capture. According to a representative of BP to whom I spoke at yesterday evening's Scottish Parliament and Business Exchange event, the company will know about the economic viability of its scheme and whether it can proceed with it by the end of the year. What talks are the Executive and the DTI having with the company to ensure that we create the conditions that will allow that scheme to succeed?
How can we persuade other businesses that taking steps to reduce their energy bills not only makes good financial sense but is increasingly important from a public relations point of view, given that it is the right thing to do both ethically and environmentally? I agree with Rosie Kane that the Government must engage with food manufacturers to reduce the amount of packaging around food and that retailers must stop shoving plastic bags at customers. It would take very little to persuade shoppers to take their own bags to the shops and to get them used to less packaging. In many ways, vast numbers of the public are ahead of Government policy in that area and are waiting for action to be taken but, as other Scottish National Party members have said, Scotland is constrained by always having to refer to another place.
Education programmes are vital. For example, the "Talking Scotland" ads on drugs and alcohol that the Scottish Executive produces could be interspersed with advice on using energy-efficient light bulbs, not leaving appliances on stand-by and spending to save by buying more energy-efficient appliances in the first place. We could persuade people to buy food locally at farmers markets, which can be cheaper and can save on food miles. I thank all members who have supported my motion, with Farmers Weekly, to promote farmers markets and buying food locally.
As Richard Lochhead mentioned, we urgently need an energy efficiency strategy. In the private house-building sector, corners are still being cut. Pipes that are out of sight are not being lagged and the most energy-efficient boilers are not being installed. Aerial heat loss surveys show that new private house developments are some of the worst when it comes to energy efficiency. Planning and building departments must be signing off those developments. What quality control measures are in place to ensure that building control officers are doing their jobs properly? Given the breaches to which I have referred, are ministers confident that allowing buildings to self-certify is the right way to go?
Scotland must do as much as it can to reduce energy consumption. On a global scale, our contribution may be small, but it could be much larger if the Scottish Government were to put its heart and soul into supporting research and development in those Scottish companies that work in the renewables sector. The export potential is huge and would have a substantial impact on jobs and the balance of payments. As our political leaders travel the world, they must use their influence to persuade other Governments to address climate change. It is testament to Blair's weakness with Bush that he has not been able to persuade the Bush Administration to reduce its reliance on oil and to save the planet in more ways than one.
I call Sarah Boyack.
Do I have four or five minutes, Presiding Officer?
It may even be six.
Excellent.
I want to focus on some of the easier challenges that are before us. This afternoon, there have been some excellent speeches, especially focusing on the renewables sector, where we have made great strides since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, although there is much more to be done. However, I want to focus on energy efficiency, because if we really want to tackle some of our climate change problems, we should start with some of the easiest areas, rather than always focus on the difficult issues. I will come back to Mark Ruskell's excellent speech on the need to focus on the difficult issues, but today I want to consider why we are not cutting our emissions and reducing our energy demands by 20 per cent—that is the easy bit. We should really focus on cutting them by 40 per cent.
To meet the 20 per cent target, we need to have an energy efficiency strategy. The Executive has heralded such a strategy three or four times, but we are still waiting for it. We need to get a move on. We are already missing out on some carbon savings because we do not have that strategy in place. As well as supporting energy efficiency, we need to provide much better public information about what people can do as individuals.
Will the member give way?
No.
I turn to the issue of domestic use. A consultation on revised building standards is under way. That is extremely welcome. We should see it as a chance to ratchet up our standards. As all members know, the rise in domestic energy prices is a huge issue for households that are on fixed incomes and are on the brink of fuel poverty. Over the past two years, energy prices have gone up by about 30 per cent. That is dragging many people into fuel poverty. We need to ensure that we have higher general building standards. In the consultation, there is a welcome reference to the use of low or zero-carbon technologies. That is really good, and we should encourage builders to do more in that area.
However, the use of such technologies cannot be at the expense of energy efficiency—the two issues must go hand in hand. We should take a lead from the Greater London Authority and some of our European neighbours and ensure that the consultation leads to higher energy efficiency standards for our buildings. We should combine such standards with low or zero-carbon technologies, rather than seeing a trade-off between the two, and ensure that we incorporate microgeneration, combined heat and power and heat exchange pumps in buildings. Recently I visited a house for five people in Alasdair Morrison's constituency. Traditionally, the fuel bill would have been £700 a year, but this brand-new house, built by the local housing association, was going to have a bill of £200. That is the kind of house that we should be building everywhere in Scotland. It has a mix of energy efficiency measures and small-scale micro-renewables.
In addition to acting with regard to our new houses, we must consider the fact that a majority of our existing houses will still be with us in 2050, by which time we have to meet our target of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions. We have to do more to our existing housing stock.
Recently, I asked a parliamentary question about whether we in Scotland could go ahead with a policy that is being piloted in England by the UK Government and British Gas and which gives people £100 off their council tax when they install energy efficiency measures. Apparently, because of a legal loophole, even though that is happening under the Labour Government in England, we cannot do it in Scotland. I think that we should sort out that legal loophole. The member's bill that I am working on at the moment would let us do that.
We should be encouraging people to upgrade the energy efficiency of our existing buildings. The figures from Scottish Gas suggest that spending a modest amount on cavity wall insulation or loft insulation could result in a saving of something like £500 over three or four years. That is the kind of equation that people understand. We should be promoting that in Scotland and letting more people play a part in that agenda. There are, apparently, 700,000 houses in Scotland that could benefit from cavity wall insulation.
Why are we not doing more on the simple things that I have outlined? We have the big challenges of climate change before us but we should be starting to take action on the issues in which we can link together social justice, the creation of local jobs and saving the planet. That seems to me to be an obvious thing for us to do. We should also be incentivising small businesses, which are acutely aware of the rising costs of energy. We should be helping them. If they are occupying a building and put in energy efficiency measures, we should give them money off their business rates as a practical incentive. We will be doing lots of extremely expensive things to promote low-carbon technologies. Some of the projects that I support in a foolhardy way, such as the hydrogen projects in the north-east of Scotland, are superb, but they are not cheap. Why are we not doing some of the basic things that every householder can play a part in?
We need more education. Some of the Executive's education campaigns have been excellent. No one person can find a solution; everyone has a part to play.
Mark Ruskell's speech today was excellent but, on Monday, I was disappointed to see that the Greens were criticising the Executive for mentioning the fact that half-filled kettles should be part of our strategy. If that were the only part of the strategy, I would be fully behind that criticism. Last year, I went down to Wokingham to look at the national grid. On that visit, I found out that the national grid is under the greatest pressure at half-time in a football match, when everyone in the nation fills up their kettles to the top and puts them on. That is an amusing anecdote, but it focuses the mind on the need to use our energy more wisely. We need to think about the times at which we use our energy.
Several members have mentioned the practical things that we can all do. Everybody needs to keep those things in mind. Schools are playing a part and eco-schools are a superb way in which to get the next generation involved in this agenda. However, those of us for whom the fuel bill is not a big issue are not under pressure yet. We have to encourage people to take action because it is the right thing to do.
Bigger changes in lifestyles will come about once awareness is raised. Let us get on with energy efficiency. It is the easiest place to start and it would save £1.3 billion that Scotland currently wastes. That is inexcusable and must be tackled.
Alex Johnstone mentioned that this debate shows that there is a lot of consensus on this issue. However, I am not going to be as consensual as I usually am. It is not usually my style to be critical of other members and it is certainly not my style to criticise my fellow Greens, but I must say that I thought Mark Ruskell was a little bit too nice in his speech. I will return to that in a minute.
Mark Ruskell's speech emphasised the essence of our amendment. The Scottish share is not a target; it is an estimate of potential savings in CO2 emissions from particular sectors of Executive policy. It is not the whole story. For example, it does not include those areas in which current policies will lead to increased emissions, which means that it tells us nothing about how Scotland is doing as a whole. After all, if we looked only at expenditure and not at income, we would never know whether we were overdrawn. The Scottish share has to apply to all policy measures, as our motion states, or it is meaningless.
As I said, I am not going to be particularly consensual. I am going to be slightly critical of "Changing Our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programme". I looked forward to the publication of that document and I was happy when it came out. When I started to go through it, however, I was irritated by some of its contents. It is that irritation that I will share with members today. I am surprised that more members did not refer directly to the document—I wonder whether I am among a minority who have actually read it.
I was irritated by the examples of a failure to join up Executive policies. For example, on page 6 there is a lovely picture of some cyclists, but it is a pity that in its transport consultation the Scottish Executive is considering abandoning its target of quadrupling cycling. Money for cycling is being squeezed and funding is largely left to local authorities. Page 22 highlights the biomass heating at Queen Margaret University College and the combined heat and power system at the University of Edinburgh. Page 46 mentions the Averon leisure centre in Alness, which is near where I stay in Easter Ross, but what about schools that are being built under public-private partnership contracts? Under such contracts, it seems to be impossible to specify that buildings must have biomass heating systems. The new Dingwall academy is to be built 6 miles down the road from the Averon centre, but that school will not have a biomass boiler even though the area is awash with—
Does the member realise that it will be possible to put in a biomass boiler at a later date?
A wet heating system can be specified so that the boiler can be replaced, but that is a bit of a cop-out. A biomass boiler should be put in from the word go, both for its own merit and to show that we are serious about stimulating our biomass industry and tackling climate change.
Page 10 shows a picture of the Pelamis wave energy generator. We are really proud of the Pelamis because it was developed and largely built in Scotland, but is it contributing to Scotland's share? No—it is contributing to Portugal's share. The minister is fond of talking about route maps and intellectual capital, but marine renewables are crying out for a route map to commercialisation. They can get from the good-idea stage to the testing stage, but they cannot get to commercialisation. The Government is not backing up the industry and it is crucial that it begins to do so—otherwise, we will lose the initiative and it will go abroad.
Page 18 mentions
"our successful Scottish Community and Householders Renewable Initiative".
It is successful, but it is so successful that it is constantly underfunded and under threat. If it was increased tenfold, it still would not meet the demand. We are underfunding a crucial route by which we can encourage the use of renewable sources in homes and communities.
Page 21 states:
"The residential and transport sectors have shown significant growth in energy consumption … But these sectors are also the most difficult to tackle".
There is an air of hand-wringing helplessness about that, but the Executive should not wring its hands. It should do something about the problem. It could start by supporting Green MSPs' proposed bills on home energy efficiency and traffic reduction targets.
The document states that air travel is reserved, but the Scottish Executive introduced the air route development fund, which will increase air travel. In his opening speech, the minister said that we need air travel for some purposes, and I agree. There are lifeline air services in my region that I would support. However, I do not think that we needed a 90 per cent increase in the number of air passengers between 1993 and 2003. That is an unacceptable increase.
I was trying to make a serious point. Is the member seriously telling me that the Green party's message to all those people in our universities who need to trade their capital internationally is, "Go abroad and stay abroad, because you won't be able to trade from Scotland"? That is a serious question, which the member must address.
I hope that the minister is not seriously suggesting that the only way to trade intellectual capital is to put it in a bag and carry it abroad. Nowadays, we have much more sophisticated methods for communication of intellectual capital and other things.
My favourite example from the document is on page 13, which mentions the "ambitious target" of 40 per cent renewable electricity by 2020. Electricity forms 20 per cent of our energy use and 40 per cent of 20 per cent is 8 per cent, so the target is for 8 per cent of energy to be from renewables by 2020. Is that an ambitious target? By 2020, 92 per cent of our energy use will be from non-renewable resources. The minister might call that ambitious, but I call it a cop-out. I call it a failure of leadership and a failure to grasp the nettle.
I do not want to be negative about the document or indeed the Executive's efforts. I have been campaigning for recognition of the seriousness of the issue for the past 17 years, so the fact that it is even on the Government's agenda is progress, but we could be doing so much more. I especially like the bit in the document about the responsibility that developed countries have to lead the way in tackling climate change. I agree whole-heartedly with that. However, that will involve hard decisions by Governments. If a Government is not prepared to take those hard decisions, it is not fit for purpose in the early 21st century. If we do not act responsibly and with urgency in this century, we will experience escalating local and global effects of climate change, droughts, population displacement and human misery.
When a television programme on climate change is about five global disasters that are waiting to happen, when top businessmen go to Downing Street to ask the Government not to relieve the pressure on business but to introduce tougher measures, when the world may be going to war over water and not oil and when there is a real possibility that billions of people will be displaced by natural events, never mind wars, climate change is a serious challenge.
If we do not take action—and perhaps even if we do—we may face catastrophic climate change. That is a terrifying prospect, but it is no good sitting like a mesmerised rabbit in the headlights. It is also no good to take the attitude—which is receding, thankfully—of saying that Scotland is a small country, so what can we do and what difference can we make? I have two responses to that. First, Scotland has a history of making a contribution to the world that far outweighs its size. Everything from telephones to tarmac—that might not be the best example—to penicillin shows that. Secondly, as other members have said, as a developed country, we have made and still make a disproportionate contribution to the problem. It behoves us to lead by example and to harness our talents for invention and innovation to halt and reverse climate change and the damage that is being done.
Members have traded many statistics and I will not add my tuppenceworth. Anything can be proved with figures. I would like to see concentration on what needs to be done. It is important to find ways of measuring accurately the effectiveness of the actions that we undertake, but we should not be too distracted by figures.
I was sorry to hear Alex Johnstone's attack on my Liberal Democrat colleagues at Westminster, who are being sensible in developing a tax policy that starts to focus on taxing pollution, not income. That is exactly the right way to go.
Mark Ruskell made a strong speech. I agree with him that statistics can be misleading.
Maureen Macmillan identified leadership and persuasion as key and I agree. The Government can set parameters and provide information and legislative and fiscal encouragement, but it all comes down to people hearing and acting on the message. She spoke about challenging myths and changing perceptions to enable the renewables sector to grow. She articulated well the potential. What also emerged was the frustration at how slowly we are using that potential.
Andrew Welsh made a strong speech. I agree with his call for support for fledgling industries. In essence, he was saying that if we get climate change action right, that will be good for the environment, the economy and social well-being.
In a constructive speech, John Scott highlighted the necessity of increased awareness of one of the essentials of life—fresh water. He also pointed out the potential to expand hydropower. It is amazing that that is not more of an element in the debate.
John Home Robertson made a good point about what needs to be done after a target is met. Reaching a target of 40 per cent is great, but 60 per cent is left. He knows that I believe that his conviction that we need nuclear power alongside everything else is wrong. The CORWM report outlined not the right way but the least worst way to deal with our waste.
Jamie Stone's speech showed the other side of the coin to Mark Ruskell's, as it was a positive presentation of what the Executive is doing as opposed to a negative one. Not surprisingly, I was in sympathy with that.
Rosie Kane might not have the same answers as I have to many of the problems, but she made many good points about what needs to happen and to be done. Perhaps how we would do things would differ, but I agree with much of what she said.
Alasdair Morrison focused on the step change that we should aim for in our built environment. He was absolutely correct, and other members picked up on what he said.
I was pleased that Maureen Watt drew attention to the good science that is going on in the north-east on matters as diverse as bovine digestion and carbon sequestration. She also mentioned thermal imaging, which is a simple tool to demonstrate energy inefficiency. It could be used much more to build consumer demand for better, more energy-efficient houses. Sarah Boyack picked up on that theme and concentrated on housing stock and the contribution that could be made by householders and small businesses here and now.
Every contribution counts, whether it is big or small, but the contribution must be made. The wide variety of topics covered in the debate illustrates how all-pervasive the issue of climate change is.
The debate has largely been constructive. There is much consensus about the problem, the breadth and depth of the solutions and our responsibility as leaders, legislators and individuals to work towards those solutions. The Executive's climate change programme is aptly entitled "Changing Our Ways". We must all work together—across the Parliament, the country and the globe—if we are going to arrest, halt and reverse climate change and the consequences that it may well have for our planet. I commend the programme to the Parliament.
The debate has been thoughtful and constructive. Climate change is for real. This Parliament is certainly convinced of that. If anybody still doubted it, Sir David Attenborough's wonderfully stage-managed conversion on the BBC the other week gave the phenomenon official blessing.
Of course, the Conservatives had witnessed another David's whole-hearted conversion to the cause some months ago—I refer to Cameron of that ilk. He rightly described climate change as the greatest challenge facing mankind.
Some experts, such as the green guru, Professor James Lovelock, tell us that it is already too late. In his new book, "The Revenge of Gaia", the professor claims that a final collapse might be about to happen, as he watches the J-curve of carbon dioxide emissions shoot off the top of the graph. Ross Finnie accepted in his speech that irreparable damage might already have been done; Rosie Kane and others concurred.
Most reputable scientists accept that reversing the surge of the J-curve is beyond the power of individuals, communities or even nations. Other than trying to explain why it is such a bad thing that soon we might be able to grow grapes in John o' Groats or welcome new species of butterflies to Tain, how do we get people to accept that they can do something about climate change? That is especially the case in Scotland where, so far—apart from last year's tragic storms in the Uists—we have been spared most of the catastrophic implications of climate change. The real test of climate change is perhaps less to do with whether warming can be reversed and more about whether the rich nations are prepared to help those most at risk from the worst effects and to clean up our own act to limit the damage. Of course, we must do our bit in achieving a 60 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, but saying it will not make it happen. As Mark Ruskell and others pointed out, any improvement in emissions reductions in Scotland has probably largely been due to the closure of Ravenscraig. Scotland's emissions are not dropping; they are going up.
In our view, the Executive has failed to capture the public's imagination in its drive to make all of us more environmentally friendly and climate-change aware. It is long on targets but short on action to bring about the vibrant, low-carbon economy to which Ross Finnie referred. It has chosen instead to focus largely on the proportion of electricity that is generated by renewable energy sources.
Does the member agree that the part that education can play, all the way through from primary up to college or university, is extremely important and that more attention should be given to that?
I concur. In a previous existence I made television programmes about the subject. Part of what we were trying to do was to educate people about the issue.
Renewables must have a place in any future energy equation, but we believe that the Executive's current policy of 40 per cent provision from renewables has allowed wind power to get ahead in the market, to the detriment of other technologies.
It is unacceptable, for example, that there are no fewer than nine applications for windfarms on the Ochils, several of which are at the appeal stage. Likewise, in north-east Fife, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty and a tourist magnet, there are still competing applications for windfarms just a few kilometres apart, after yet another application in the same area was dropped before going to appeal.
In certain select locations—mainly the islands—where there is a constancy of wind, there may be an argument for onshore windfarms, but I understand that even on the Isle of Lewis, the RSPB and other, statutory, conservation bodies are opposing a 700MW windfarm, which they claim will damage an internationally important wildlife site. Wildlife, too, share our planet and deserve to be factored into any future energy equation.
The fact is that the current planning regime provides inadequate guidance to local authorities, communities and developers on the siting of windfarms. What is needed is a national location strategy and, in our view, that is what the Executive should provide if it really believes that wind technology has a role. I agree with John Scott that we should develop a raft of renewable resources, including tidal, wave, hydro, biomass and perhaps offshore wind, all of which Scotland is ideally placed to exploit.
However, it is more important that we emphasise energy efficiency. As Sarah Boyack and others said, energy efficiency is widely recognised as the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of achieving the nation's climate change commitments. For example, if every UK household replaced just one 100W light bulb with a 20W compact fluorescent lamp long-life light bulb, the energy saved would be the equivalent of that produced by the Sizewell B nuclear power station—that is a staggering fact.
As several members indicated, we still await the Executive's energy efficiency strategy. However, as Alasdair Morrison rightly said, there is tremendous scope for achieving energy efficiency in the built environment through, for example, heat retention methods such as double glazing, house insulation and so on, which are probably more easily achievable than anything else. Robin Harper mentioned recently Amory Lovins's wonderfully energy efficient house in Aspen, Colorado. Having visited it, I probably would not give it any prizes for architecture, but the ideas for energy efficiency in that house are such that architects from all over the world should visit it, study it and consider whether they could use those ideas in their own countries.
Sarah Boyack was right to say that a range of fiscal incentives should be used to encourage homeowners and businesses to become more energy efficient. Only when we ourselves reduce emissions and offer practical policies on efficiency will Scotland and the wider UK be able to demonstrate the global leadership that might yet persuade other countries to follow our example.
In a wide-ranging debate, the Scottish National Party has tried to focus on several practical means of making progress. However, it is necessary to comment on remarks that have been made throughout the debate to see why we need the full powers of a normal country to tackle the climate change problem. Looking over our shoulder and having to consult further south is not the best means of making progress.
The Executive acknowledged in its response to the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report on climate change that national emissions reduction targets were not currently feasible due to the fact that the Executive does not have full control over the levers required to deliver them. The SNP believes that, following that admission, the situation must be sorted out. Indeed, if we are to achieve the climate change targets that I think people are trying to grapple with, we must have our hands on those levers.
Richard Lochhead made a plea for a major push on energy efficiency, which many members mentioned, to make it more publicly high profile and available. The question of how 700,000 houses can be climate-proofed is a practical one, but that could create a lot of work for private businesses. The win-win situation to which we referred earlier is part of that. However, when we look at "Changing Our Ways", we can see the plethora of bodies that have been set up in the private sector, in local authorities and so on to deal with energy efficiency. I think that a one-stop shop, as mentioned in the SNP amendment, would be a good way in which to give energy efficiency a far higher profile. If the Tories actually believe that we should make a difference, the SNP's amendment, which deals with energy efficiency matters practically, is well worth their support.
Mark Ruskell talked about the difficulties of the hard target in transport. In his contribution to the climate change debate in March 2005, the then Minister for Transport said of the growth in transport:
"We must do whatever is realistically possible to limit that continuing growth."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 2 March 2005; c 1735.]
Unless we have major investment in public transport, we will not be able to do that.
It is possible, however, in the fuels that we produce, to make Scotland a centre of excellence for clean road fuels—I mention the Argent Energy factory development for biodiesel in Lanarkshire and the potential for energy crops. Andrew Welsh mentioned the problems of getting those issues to the forefront of the debate. Hydrogen technology is also proven and requires to be developed. The Government's efforts to create the potential for people to adapt to liquid petroleum gas has been a massive failure, given the potential that exists to get people thinking about changing the fuels that they use.
It is up to us to ensure that all the departments in the Government are made to announce, each year, how much carbon they are using, how much they are saving and the costs that they are incurring in the process. Unless the reports from the Government to the Parliament detail that information from each Executive department, we are going to lose out.
A number of issues relating to governance require answers from the minister. The European Union's energy efficiency directives must be brought together in each country. I want to know when the energy efficiency strategy in its various stages will be announced in Scotland. It is essential for us to know how we are going to achieve, how much we are going to achieve and over what timescale.
The Executive was going to involve all the relevant departments in developing an adaptation policy framework—a clearer picture of what adaptation is, where the gaps are and what better coordination is required in terms of the governance issues that relate to Executive departments' behaviour. I wonder whether the minister will respond to that point, given his comment in response to paragraph 272 of the committee's climate change report. I have not yet found the Executive's response to that recommendation in "Changing Our Ways". It would be useful for us to know that.
Maureen Macmillan dwelt on many of the important renewables developments that are happening. However, when one sees the list that shows that we are falling behind on the potential for wave and tidal—indeed, we are falling behind on the development of much of the technology—the areas of failed investment show the large amount that we have to catch up and why not having all the levers of power in Government has put us at a disadvantage.
John Scott talked about new forms of energy coming from hydro power. Do we not have a problem with water in this country, which we inherited from the Tories? I am talking about all the leaky pipes in the water system that they failed to deal with when they were in power.
John Home Robertson raised the issue of filling the energy gap with nuclear power. If we develop the Talisman Energy project to its full potential and if we develop the hydrogen scheme at Peterhead, that will deal with a third of Scottish household needs. If we added to that the Pentland firth's potential for tidal energy, we would be in a position not only to bridge the gap, but to export energy from our renewable sources, if we had a Government that set such a target.
There are many things to be said about the way in which the Government is operating. I focus finally on Jamie Stone's speech. If he is happy with the way in which the coalition is operating, I wonder whether he will be happy if there is another Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition—let us hope that there is not—and the nuclear waste is dumped at Altnabreac, in his constituency. That is the prospect for the future of Scotland. The SNP's alternative, which focuses on raising popular support for energy efficiency and getting ministers to show how we are improving on our carbon reductions, would be a practical way to try to stave off that awful nuclear future.
Ross Finnie opened this afternoon's debate by reminding us of the devastating global impact that climate change could have without urgent global action. He went on to outline the important role that Scotland has to play in global efforts to tackle the problem. It is reassuring that members recognise the severity of the problem and Scotland's responsibility to be at the forefront of the global response.
The scientific evidence for climate change is now overwhelming. Since 1990, global temperatures have risen by 0.2°C and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased from 354 to 380 parts per million and are still rising. To limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels—the figure above which scientists consider dangerous climate change will be triggered—is likely to require carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to stay below 400 parts per million.
Therefore, the scale and urgency of the challenge cannot be underestimated. An increase in global temperatures of approximately 1°C is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching; a 2°C increase might be the threshold that triggers melting of the Greenland icecap; and an increase of more than 3°C poses a serious risk of large-scale, irreversible system disruption, such as possible destabilisation of the Antarctic ice sheets.
Such grave scenarios are well within the range of climate change projections for this century. If anticipated growth in emissions is left unchecked, the increase in global average temperatures could be as much as 5.8°C. As many members have said this afternoon, that could have devastating environmental, social and economic impacts around the world, particularly in the most vulnerable developing countries.
Rosie Kane talked about the need for international action. Of course, the UK has already taken a strong lead internationally in negotiating the Kyoto protocol, in setting ambitious domestic goals, and in establishing one of the world's leading climate change research centres in the form of the Hadley centre. The Executive has played an active role in supporting and working with the UK and, by publishing our new climate change programme, we have demonstrated leadership in our own right.
We have identified the Scottish share of UK climate change commitments and have set a Scottish target that commits us to making a more than equitable contribution in devolved areas. Due to the fluid nature of the Scottish share, it will increase in line with UK efforts to meet the 2010 20 per cent goal. By committing to deliver 1 million tonnes of carbon savings above and beyond the Scottish share, we are demonstrating our ambition to deliver much greater savings in devolved areas than the UK average.
By setting a Scottish target, we have provided strong leadership, but no Government can control emissions on its own. Everyone must accept responsibility. We must change our ways and adopt more sustainable patterns of behaviour; that includes individuals, households, businesses, community groups and the voluntary sector. Maureen Macmillan referred to that in her speech.
We need to communicate the climate change message as widely as possible, through a range of channels. As Ross Finnie said, we are developing more effective ways of communicating sustainable development messages. Part of that is about ensuring that those on the ground are aware of climate change, of their contribution to it and of the opportunities that exist to tackle it.
Does the minister acknowledge that if we abandon traffic reduction targets as Mr Scott clearly wants us to do, we will never meet the long-term targets to which she alludes? We will never make a two-thirds reduction by 2050.
I disagree; we are not abandoning the targets. If the member looks at the national transport strategy, he will see that we are seeking views on that.
We have to be sure that we are communicating our message to key stakeholders, so one of our first steps—which might seem a small step but which I think is important—will be to run a prominent climate change display at this year's Royal Highland Show. We are also publishing a short guide for farmers on climate change and Scottish agriculture. By raising awareness of the issues, we hope that farmers, among others, will be encouraged to help to tackle climate change for the other benefits that doing so will bring, such as resource efficiency and commercial development. We will continue to seek opportunities to spread the climate change message among all sectors of society, including the general public.
One policy measure that has implications for all sectors of society is the European Union's emissions trading scheme, which is the largest such trading scheme in the world. Around 120 installations based in Scotland—accounting for almost 50 per cent of the total carbon dioxide emissions in Scotland—are part of the scheme. Through it, they are expected to reduce their projected emissions by around 6.5 million tonnes by the end of 2007.
Whereas the EU emissions trading scheme is specifically designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, members will understand that not all policies have emissions reduction as their primary objective. However, it is essential that the impact on emissions should be a key consideration in the development of future policies, as a number of members rightly pointed out. The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, which came into force in February this year, will go a long way towards ensuring that climate change is taken into account in policy development. Through that pioneering act, Scotland is leading the way in Europe in extending the scope of environmental assessment to all public sector strategies, plans and programmes. That will support the drive for genuinely sustainable development and will promote public involvement in the decision-making process. Given the new Scottish share and Scottish target approach and the extensive analytical assessment that go with that, we want to ingrain climate change thinking even further in policy development. In short, we want to carbon proof new policies to ensure that we know what impact they will have on carbon emissions.
Alasdair Morrison and Sarah Boyack highlighted the importance of energy efficiency in architecture and building standards. The current public consultation on architecture policy recognises the importance of sustainable buildings. Indeed, Architecture and Design Scotland is currently considering how to respond to the issue of climate change. Executive officials are in discussion with ADS on the possible steps that could be taken to enhance energy efficiency. I very much welcome the work that is taking place in the Western Isles, which I would be delighted to visit in future.
Several members mentioned the potential for biomass energy. Obviously, as we have said, we are working on the development of a biomass action plan, which will be delivered by the end of 2006. We have huge forestry and agricultural resources in Scotland, so we are well placed to become a major player in renewable heat and biomass production. We are hugely keen to promote biomass and are exploring ways of overcoming some of the barriers that members mentioned to the promotion of renewable heating in PPP projects.
In addition, the updated agriculture strategy that we recently published recognises the need for Scottish agriculture to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We will establish a stakeholder group to evaluate agriculture's contribution and use that information to develop a comprehensive action plan for further improvements.
Work to establish mechanisms to deal with climate change and to achieve the Scottish target is under way. We will provide training for policy makers to help them to take account of mitigation and adaptation issues in developing new policies. We will establish an analysts' network within the Executive to ensure that the carbon impact of policies is assessed and presented in a consistent and routine manner. We will consider how climate factors are being addressed at policy, plan and programme level as part of the SEA process. We will use all of that vital information to help to inform investment decisions and spending review processes to ensure that the most cost-effective and sustainable climate-friendly policies are pursued.
Scotland might be a small country, but we have a responsibility of global proportions. Size is no excuse for inaction. Each one of us has a moral responsibility to act now. By acting positively, we can have an influence well beyond our own borders and, in doing so, we can make Scotland a more prosperous and sustainable place. I do not share the doom and gloom of the SNP, the Greens and the Tories. For the SNP to claim that we can tackle Scotland's climate change problems only by becoming independent is, frankly, rather a joke.
Scotland's climate change programme is a serious response to a serious issue. It has been welcomed by all the serious environmental players in Scotland. It represents a considerable and serious stepping up of our efforts and ambitions. What we need now is for everyone in Scotland to respond to our leadership and to make a pledge to reduce their own contribution to climate change.
I urge the chamber to support the motion in Ross Finnie's name.