Climate Change
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5379, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on climate change. I point out to members that time is not on our side, so they should stick to their time limits.
This year is a landmark year for climate change. The 15th conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—COP15—is meeting in Copenhagen as we speak. As the Danish convener of the summit said in her opening statement,
"This is the time to deliver. This is the place to commit."
In Scotland, of course, we have already made commitments and begun the task of delivery. We know that we have a moral duty to act, because climate change will affect the poor, the vulnerable and developing countries first and worst. We were strongly reminded of that last month, when the Scottish Government, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency hosted a conference on climate change and human rights, at which we heard about the social impacts of climate change on the peoples of developing countries.
Beyond the moral and environmental case, we in Scotland also see the low-carbon economy as a vital opportunity for Scotland and for Scottish jobs. Scotland is a small, developed nation, and our strategy is that we should set an example to the industrialised world by acting as a model of best practice in tackling climate change. We hope that strong action by Scotland will influence other nations to agree an ambitious climate change treaty.
On 24 June 2009, the Scottish Parliament, with the strong backing of civil society in Scotland, unanimously passed the industrialised world's most ambitious climate change legislation: the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Our statutory targets are to reduce emissions by 42 per cent by 2020 and by 80 per cent by 2050, which covers all recognised greenhouse gases and international aviation and shipping. All-party and public support for the 2009 act, including from the business community, was and remains vital. The 2009 act is designed to give certainty to industry, business and the public about Scotland's low-carbon future.
Even before the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was passed, we had published our climate change delivery plan to set out the scale of the transformation required in energy generation, energy efficiency, transport and the rural economy. We are now developing the detail of our report on proposals and policies, to be published next summer.
On Tuesday, the First Minister gave further impetus to our implementation by announcing the convening of the 2020 climate delivery group, consisting of influential people from business and civic society who wish to help Scotland to meet its ambitious climate change targets.
I welcome the contribution that I am sure many of the 2020 group members will make. However, could the minister explain a little more clearly what the relationship between Government and that group will be? The United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change is the advisory body that is listed in the legislation and which the Government chose to stick to. What is the relationship between the two?
The 2020 climate delivery group has no legal status of any kind. It consists of a group of people who have come together to help us to work our way through the issues. We very much welcome the contribution of time and effort that the climate delivery group will provide. As members will recall, the 2009 act gives us the facility to designate who will provide us with legal advice. For the time being, that will be the UK Committee on Climate Change, which is the only body that will provide the advice that will formally be part of the parliamentary process. However, I very much welcome the additional support that we will get from the climate delivery group.
We published a carbon assessment of our spending plans in September and we will now do that annually. That integration of carbon assessment into the key budget process is another world first.
Of course, some impacts of climate change are already on the way, so on Tuesday the First Minster also launched the finalised version of "Scotland's Climate Change Adaptation Framework". Scotland is one of the few countries to take a strategic approach to resilience to climate impacts.
As further evidence of Scotland's commitment to respond to our global responsibilities on climate change, I am pleased to announce today that we will establish the 2014 climate change saltire fellowships. The fellowships will deliver on a commitment that was made as part of our Commonwealth games bid to set up and deploy a carbon emissions reduction fund. The fellowships that will be supported by the fund will be targeted at climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in Commonwealth countries, particularly those that are least able to deal with the impacts of climate change. Talented individuals from Commonwealth countries will be able to come to Scotland to share in our cutting-edge knowledge on climate change adaptation and mitigation. The fellowships will be rooted in knowledge and skills transfer in areas where Scotland is strong, such as renewable energy technology, carbon capture and storage, community action on climate change, forestry and climate change policy and legislation.
I have a second announcement. Scotland is a nation with a record of supporting others in their development. Although our first priority is to focus our efforts on developing our contribution to low-carbon development at home, we recognise that developing countries urgently need capacity-building support through knowledge exchange and financial assistance to make low-carbon energy possible in their countries, too. In support of that, a range of Scottish organisations from across industry, Government, academia and civil society have come together to co-operate with the efforts of the United Kingdom and the European Union to establish a global framework for low-carbon energy supplies. The partnership will work together to support those international efforts by offering expertise and capacity and by pulling together packages for funding support where necessary. Assuming that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process is able to agree a legal and financial framework for low-carbon mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries during 2010, the Scottish partnership stands ready to work with our UK, European and global partners on a series of practical actions to deliver on those.
Finally, to prove that we are committed to taking action on the ground, I am delighted to announce that, on 27 March 2010, the Scottish Government will again support earth hour. Earth hour is an important symbolic event that brings together organisations and individuals worldwide to demonstrate their commitment to addressing climate change. To spread the reach of earth hour across Scotland, we will work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Trades Union Congress to promote next year's event. We will switch off all non-essential lighting in our buildings, promote the initiative to our staff and involve non-departmental public bodies and agencies in supporting earth hour as a visible sign that we are committed to change.
Through our actions and through those further announcements, Scotland is building a world-leading climate change framework and staying at the leading edge of international thinking on climate change. We think that it is vital to let the world know about Scotland's stance to inspire others to take similar strong action. Therefore, we have had a full programme of engagement in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit. In September, the First Minister wrote to the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, to tell him about the level of commitment from Scotland. We have been commended by European commissioners, the White House and the Governor of California. I attended the UN climate conference in Barcelona, where Scotland's programme was the subject of much international interest. As well as being a spur to action by other countries, Scotland's framework can be a practical model for other nations. The Basque Government has translated the 2009 act, so it will now be available to the whole Spanish-speaking world. The fact that Scotland is now a full member of the climate group puts us on an equal footing with key world players.
We will, of course, work closely with the UK Government on climate change. We would like to have been on the UK delegation to Copenhagen, in line with the arrangements of other EU nations such as Spain, Belgium, Germany and Denmark, which will have representation from their devolved Governments, but I will be in Copenhagen all of next week to ensure that Scotland's climate change ambitions are widely promoted. As opportunities present themselves, I will, of course, work closely with the UK delegation, as appropriate.
On Monday, I will host a Scottish event for the international audience on Scotland's climate change framework, the low-carbon economy and Scottish society's support for action. We will speak to other world leaders at the climate group's climate leaders summit the following day, as well as holding a range of ministerial bilateral meetings. We will report back to Scotland from the United Nations conference centre via a telepresence link.
I hope that, by endorsing the strong position on climate change that is set out in the motion, Parliament will challenge the countries of the world to look to what Scotland is doing and to ensure that we are not alone in setting such targets. I intend us to take that strong message to the international community at Copenhagen next week. Let us all wish all the nations that are engaged in the summit the very best in their deliberations, and let us hope for a successful and appropriate outcome.
I move,
That the Parliament, having agreed unanimously on a 42% target reduction in Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050, agrees that MSPs and Scotland as a whole must focus on the practical implementation of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; urges that all countries bring forward the most ambitious commitments appropriate to their circumstances early in the talks; looks to participants in Copenhagen to reach a legally binding agreement at the earliest opportunity that will prevent world temperatures rising by more than 2°C, and notes that a failure to do so would threaten vulnerable countries with, for example, inundation and desertification.
I am sure that the Parliament will, as the minister has called on us to do, endorse the motion that he has moved. I do not disagree with a word of it, and I agree with and welcome much of what he said in his speech.
However, I lodged my amendment because there is an important question that we need to discuss face to face, which is about the meaning of consensus. What is the nature of the consensus, such as it is, that we have achieved? With the Parliament's unanimous passing of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which, as Stewart Stevenson mentioned, received broad support from the private sector, community groups, churches, trade unions and tens of thousands of individuals in Scotland, we achieved consensus of intent—consensus on what the objectives are and where we want to get to by 2020 and 2050.
We have achieved consensus right across the political spectrum, without conspiracy theory, denial or anyone arguing the case against reductions in emissions. That has not been the case in every country, and we need to recognise the value of that consensus of intent. Whereas here the issue has not been politically controversial, in the US, Australia and some of our fellow European member states, there has not been consensus of intent. In some of those countries, it seems that the stronger the evidence on climate change becomes, the louder grow the complaints from those who will not accept the science or who, for reasons of right-wing ideology, fear that responding to climate change poses a threat to the dominance of the unfettered free market. They are right to fear that, because it is increasingly clear that the free market cannot give us the answers that we need on climate change.
It will be important to stress in Copenhagen that it is possible to achieve the consensus of intent that we have achieved. Not just today's Governments but all their successors for decades ahead need to sign up to the programme that comes out of Copenhagen, which will mean achieving consensus of intent across the political spectrum. I value the limited consensus that we have achieved.
Sadly, there is no consensus on action, and it is wrong to suggest that there is. The First Minister was wrong when he said during First Minister's question time that the Parliament was unified on climate change objectives and the delivery programme. We have agreed the objectives, but we are divided on many of the actions that are required. The consensus that we have achieved is valuable but limited at best.
The First Minister's answer to my question about some of the actions that we need to take on aviation was disappointing. At present, it is projected that UK aviation levels will grow by some 200 per cent by 2050 if we do not impose some form of control. At that rate of growth, it will become at first extremely challenging and then physically impossible to reach the target of cutting our emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Even the UK Committee on Climate Change's recommendation that aviation growth be limited to 60 per cent will require tougher targets for the rest of the economy at a time when every Government department seems, understandably, to be daunted by the challenge that has already been set.
When the First Minister is challenged on the impossibility of matching existing aviation policy with existing climate change policy, all that he can say is that aviation emissions are included in the targets. I know that we are going to count the emissions, but we need to count them as they go down, not watch and count them as they go up. We need to restrain aviation growth if even the UK Committee on Climate Change's recommendations are to be met. No consensus exists on the actions that require to be taken in that area.
Does the member agree that, if we get high-speed rail and a much improved link between London and Glasgow and Edinburgh, many people can be removed from flights, that that would be one of the best ways for us to recover, and that there would not be a commensurate replacement of flights by other ones?
I agree that that is possible, but I do not agree that it is guaranteed. Rob Gibson will remember that, in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, we have heard voices calling for, "More of everything, thank you." Some people have wanted more aviation, more high-speed rail links and more of all the other modes of transport. More plus more still equals more.
There is no consensus on the priority that climate change deserves. I have lost count of the number of times that ministers, including the First Minister, have stated that climate change is one of the most urgent issues of our age, and of the number of times when ministers, including the First Minister—he generally does so with more pride than most—have answered criticisms of their construction record by puffing themselves up and talking about the road building programme rather than their record on constructing low-carbon homes, retroffiting existing homes or building public transport schemes, which the current Administration has developed a habit of cancelling. Only last week in the chamber, John Swinney sang the praises of the M74 extension in Glasgow. Whenever the false choice between the economy and the environment is posed, the short-term dash for growth wins out. We have no consensus yet on the priority that is attached to climate change; if we had that, we would all understand that the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, and that it must operate within limits.
Transport is an interesting issue. Unlike other areas for which there are portfolios, transport is not a good in itself. We all agree, for example, that we want a country with good health, and that education is more than a means to an economic end but enriches life in itself. Transport is different. Although 20th century economists may have worked under the absolute assumption that ever-increasing mobility is always desirable for human freedom or for the economy, 21st century economists must come to recognise that aiming to satisfy an ever-growing demand for transport will hugely damage our quality of life and environment, and that, for energy reasons, that will ultimately be impossible.
We need to ask ourselves what the role of mobility is. What is it for? After years of hearing Government ministers saying how seriously they take climate change, why are we still not counting the carbon impact of infrastructure decisions? Why are we not using the planning system to localise public services, economic activity and food production, to name just a few things, so that we can reduce the demand for transport?
Energy generation is perhaps the clearest area in which consensus breaks down. I am sure that members will talk about nuclear power in the debate. Nuclear power is no longer simply a question of waste and where to put it; it is also a question of where to get the fuel from. The world has a limited supply of uranium, just as it has limited supplies of all the other mineral commodities. For fuel reasons, aside from the issue of waste, Scotland is not the kind of country that should pursue the nuclear route. I do not want to swap peak oil for peak uranium.
Other people argue for carbon capture and storage. Perhaps carbon capture and storage technology is being developed, but it does not yet exist. It might work one day, but the UK and Scottish Governments seem to think that it is a dead cert. On that basis, they have opened the door to new coal-fired power stations. I draw members' attention to the briefing that we have received from RSPB Scotland about the proposal for a new unabated coal-fired power station at Hunterston. The use of unabated coal must end—we must be unequivocal about that.
Even on renewable energy, although everyone is signed up to it on paper, too many politicians are happy to indulge misguided local opposition to development instead of challenging the assumptions that underlie that opposition. The Scottish Environment LINK report on the sustainable land use strategy says that our landscapes are important to us because they
"contain the record of the achievements and failures of those people who went before us".
Our landscapes must contain the record of the achievements of the renewables industry or they will be doomed to contain the record of our failure on climate change.
There are areas in which there is no consensus on action. We must address the values that underpin our society—not just questions of what mobility is for, but questions of what consumerism and economic growth are for. Those are the fundamental questions that must be addressed before we can have consensus on action. As political leaders, all members of the Parliament have a responsibility to show the way. We do not yet have a consensus among ourselves about the actions that must be undertaken in our own lifestyles.
I am not happy to break the consensus, but I feel that it is important to move the amendment in my name. I move amendment S3M-5379.1, to insert at end:
", and further agrees that the targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 leave no room for complacency and that the Scottish targets can only be achieved with a fundamental policy shift in areas such as road building, energy generation and use and aviation expansion."
I thank the minister for agreeing to Labour's amendment to his motion. I understand that he wants to take with him to Copenhagen a motion on which there is consensus, so I have toned down what would have been a rather more robust comment on the progress that has been made on action. The words
"implementation of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009"
are now in the motion, in the interest of unity. Nevertheless, that will not hold me back in my comments.
I will focus on Copenhagen and on Labour's disappointment at the Scottish Government's lack of progress on implementation of the 2009 act. We passed our radical climate change legislation in June, after months of debate and lobbying. Amendments were lodged by us and by others to bring forward target dates and to add a raft of practical measures that would enable us to make big cuts in our emissions in the early years. Therefore, it is hugely disappointing that so little progress has been made on translating those legislative provisions into practical policies and spending commitments.
Politics matters, and the choices that we make in electing government—whether at national or local level—matter. Kyoto did not deliver because we did not get Australia and the United States on board. It matters that Kevin Rudd is now Australia's Labor Prime Minister and it matters that Barack Obama is now the US President—someone who believes that the US must be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. The UK Labour Government has been key to the preparations for Copenhagen. At every level of government and at every opportunity—whether at the G8 summit in Gleneagles, in Commonwealth meetings or in meetings of the EU—the UK has tried to bind countries together in looking at the radical commitments of other Governments, in getting a binding deal and in providing financial support to developing countries. Even if Copenhagen secures a deal on emissions next week, significant amounts of money must also be given to developing countries to enable them to transform their economies, to sustain their citizens in the challenging years of climate change that lie ahead and to prevent deforestation.
As the birthplace of the industrial revolution, Scotland can play a leading role in developing a route map to challenge climate change and develop action on a low-carbon economy. We all agree that we must seize the renewables opportunities but, whether those are in marine renewables or householder and community renewables, the Scottish Government could do much more now to support the expansion of those industries. That is why, if the Scottish ministers are going to be in Copenhagen, they should please talk about the progress that we are making and about what we will do when they come home. As we said in the debate on climate change this summer, it must be an honest offer. It cannot be a matter of "we will if you will"; there must be a commitment to act, whatever is agreed in Copenhagen.
In June, when we moved our amendment for a 40 per cent reduction in carbon emissions, we believed that that was doable. We also moved a raft of amendments to make it happen. When the Scottish National Party Government's target leapt to 42 per cent—after it had repeatedly signed up to 34 per cent as a maximum—it raised the bar on what it needs to do.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thanks. My time is tight because I have not lodged an amendment.
Disappointingly, the SNP Government has dragged its heels. We have not heard a word from it about putting in place the council tax and business rates reductions that we all agreed to. Where is the timescale for the land use strategy? How will the forestry targets be met? What plans will the Scottish Government put in place to tackle degraded peatlands? When will the public duty be put in place? Kicking such issues into touch until after the next election is not good enough. If the act is to be successful, it must be embraced by the whole of the public sector so that we can get on and dramatically reduce the carbon footprint.
Scotland has companies that lead the way in electric cars and battery technology, which are vital components of a low-carbon transport strategy. However, companies need to be able to compete for business. If the Scottish Government were to change its procurement process, that would enable those companies to drive the market and cut costs. The same thing applies in relation to householder renewables and community heating systems. We know that they work, as can be seen across the country. However, the cost of delay on both those issues is that we have lost one of our best-known companies, Windsave, which went into liquidation because it could not get contracts in Scotland.
What about the SNP's manifesto commitment to have renewables in every school? Will the minister tell us when that target will be met? I suspect that it is going the way of the class sizes target.
What is happening is not good enough. We need to make progress now on our existing buildings and on the next generation of buildings that will be here in 2050. Soon, we will see the first annual implementation report. Setting up a fellowship and establishing the 2020 group, however worthy those ambitions are, are not enough; we need the practical stuff now.
We need to do the easy stuff first. I want the minister to tell us, in his summing-up speech, what he is going to do to fund sustainable travel in the budget next week. Also, how much more money will be in the pot for cycling facilities, given that that funding is now at the lowest level that it has been for years? Will there be more money for bus and train travel, rather than forcing people to drive to work? Will there be more investment in energy efficiency, so that we can have a proper scheme that delivers, and a commitment to match the UK Government on its boiler scrappage scheme and its green investment plans? Is there any likelihood that, before the next Scottish Parliament elections, we will be able to offer our constituents money off their council tax if they install energy-efficiency measures?
We need action to be taken now. We are prepared to work constructively with the Scottish Government, and there is massive public support for action—that was evident at the wave demonstration at the weekend—and there is a similar appetite in the world of business.
We must work together, but we need leadership now from the Scottish Government. We must have a timescale for action to drive towards a low-carbon society and a public engagement strategy to bring us all together to work for those serious carbon reductions.
The Scottish Government needs to get on with it, not just talk about it.
I was interested to hear Patrick Harvie's comments. Indeed, I felt some of them stabbing me in the back. He stated that, unlike in some other countries, no one in Scotland resisted the idea that climate change was happening or dragged their heels as they were taken, kicking and screaming, towards the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I would like to think that I manifested some concerns and did some of the foot-dragging that was necessary during the passage of the bill—foot-dragging, not knuckle-dragging, of which I will not be accused.
We established a consensus that climate change is happening, that it was appropriate that Scotland should be a leader in tackling climate change and that we should produce a piece of legislation that would put us at the forefront of dealing with climate change issues. Let us not forget that my party voted for the decision to move from 34 per cent to 42 per cent as the 2020 target, although that was difficult for me to accept.
The minister described the Copenhagen summit as the time to deliver and the place to commit. I believe that now is the time when we should look back on what has happened in the few short months since we passed the 2009 act and express concerns—some have already been expressed from the Labour benches—about how we can make progress.
The recent announcement of the 2020 group, in which experts will come together to offer their expertise and ideas about how we can make progress, was a great step forward, and I welcome some of the announcements that have been made today. Some of the other proposals that we have heard about today to develop new ideas in Scotland and across the Commonwealth in connection with the 2014 games are also welcome. However, we must dig deep and do what is necessary to ensure that we are not simply talking about targets that have been set but may be ignored.
As we have heard, the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill contained opportunities. I and other members lodged amendments that offered us the opportunity to introduce rebates for the council tax and business rates that would allow individuals in their rented or privately owned homes and small businesses to improve their energy efficiency. I had hoped that that opportunity would have been one of the first that we would take. I am aware that money is available from sources outside the Government to deliver on that in the short term. As a consequence, we need to take every chance to move forward and ensure that we make progress as quickly as possible.
We have achieved a hard-won consensus in Scotland on climate change; it concerns me that such consensus is not universal in Europe or, indeed, the world. That is why the Copenhagen conference is so important. It is also important that our minister goes to that conference—whether as part of the national delegation or not—and explains to the world exactly how Scotland has positioned itself as a world leader in the area.
However, I have some of the reservations that Patrick Harvie mentioned. I believe that the centre-right approach to economics is the right way to go. It is important that we take the opportunity to use the chances that the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the climate change process give us to encourage the involvement of the private sector.
I believe that the concept of the free market is key to our success and that those who say that the free market cannot achieve our objectives, and that, consequently, we should take a more authoritarian approach, are endangering not only our climate, but our political democracy.
I do not disagree that the private sector—whether the market is free or less free—is capable of achieving good results. However, it is clear from the past year or two that when the free market fails, it fails on a scale of historic proportions. Should we not be worried about what might happen if we hand the challenge of climate change to the free market?
I have never been in favour of a completely unregulated market, and for that reason perhaps Patrick Harvie and I are on closer territory that we are prepared to admit during this debate.
I point out that the Conservative Opposition in the south took an active part in the passage of the UK Climate Change Bill and, in Scotland, the Conservative party placed itself close to and became actively involved in the passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.
The UK Conservatives have stated—I repeat their demand in the Scottish Parliament—that any agreement that is achieved at Copenhagen must be a rigorous one that
"binds the world in a common commitment to keep the rise of global temperatures to below 2 degrees C"
and
"which finds an international mechanism to help people in the poorest countries to protect themselves against future floods, famine and drought, in addition to what they need to help relieve their current poverty".
It is important that we have a deal that will save the environment around the world and protect the rainforests, which are the lungs of the planet.
We are at a crossroads—as the minister said, a time to deliver and a place to commit. That is exactly where we are, and the minister has our best wishes when he goes to the conference.
I thank the minister for bringing to the chamber this timely debate on climate change. I imagined that after countless committee appearances and numerous debates on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill during the first half of the year, he might have become rather fed up at the sight of me and my committee colleagues, but he is back for more. I reassure him that although we may have had our differences over certain aspects of the bill, we are singing from the same sheet today, and I am pleased at the outward-looking nature of the Government's motion.
In the months that we spent working on our bill, we naturally focused on a great many details, but it is very much the bigger picture that has been in focus this week as the COP15 got under way in Copenhagen. I do not think that there will be a single dissenting voice in the chamber when I say that we look to the participants in the talks to bring forward the most ambitious commitments and reach a legally binding agreement at the earliest opportunity that will prevent world temperatures from rising by more than 2°C.
The threat that we face from human-caused climate change is very real and very serious. I do not quite agree with the newspaper headlines that proclaim that COP15 represents our two weeks to save the world, but it is perhaps fair to say that we have two weeks in which we must at least start to save the world.
The fact is that, here in Scotland, we can cut our carbon emissions by 42 per cent, by 80 per cent or by 100 per cent, or we can turn everything off completely, but it will not make a difference unless the rest of the world is with us. It is therefore gratifying that in the past few weeks so many nations have announced their own commitments to cut emissions. Some of those are welcome commitments, but some need to go much further. We need countries that are willing to take the lead and set an example for others to follow.
Although Scotland is, disappointingly, not officially represented in the negotiations, we have already set our example with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I believe that the targets that we have enshrined in law are the minimum for which any developed nation should aim. Indeed, I hope that we can achieve even greater reductions. The motion rightly alludes to the fact that nations find themselves in different circumstances so it is likely that a range of targets and commitments will be needed to find the best overall deal. That is okay. It is only right. However, everybody needs to remember that, on the whole, it is the world's richest countries that contribute the most to global warming and the world's poorest countries that will suffer the most devastating consequences.
I certainly do not envy the negotiators in Copenhagen. It will not be easy to find the right combination and the right compromises. This week, some of the many differences between parties have been exposed already. The leak of the draft text that was prepared by the Danish hosts was certainly not ideal, but it at least served to highlight some of the things that need to be addressed and, I hope, to underline how vital it is that the UN and its representatives are not sidelined in the negotiations. There is too much at stake to risk the talks becoming fractured over leaked and unofficial documents.
Bringing together the developed world, the rapidly industrialising world and the developing world is not going to be easy. We cannot allow industrialisation to continue without restrictions on carbon emissions, yet it seems unfair to impose on expanding economies handicaps that we never had to face. I firmly believe that just as important as the limiting of carbon emissions is that industrialised nations put in place proper support and incentives to encourage developing nations to turn to sustainable technologies as an integral part of their growth. Similarly, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that it is only right for the poorest nations to be given financial support to help them adapt to the effects of climate change. I certainly hope that that will be properly addressed in Copenhagen.
Ultimately, of course, the parties at Copenhagen can put forward the most ambitious targets imaginable, but until they are acted on, they will be just that—targets. Getting an agreement will be a challenge, but the hardest work lies not during next eight days but during the next 40 years. Governments can and must do a lot, but making a difference will still rely greatly on the public's attitude.
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of joining 7,000 or so other people to march—sorry, that should be to flow—through the streets of Glasgow as part of the wave climate protest. Another 50,000 people took part in London. There is no lack of public awareness. Indeed, despite the levels of scepticism that remain, there is no lack of desire to take action, but the desire to take action and the actual taking of action are two different things. If newspaper reports are to be believed, Copenhagen has been swamped with some 1,200 limousines to chauffeur around people from the various delegations, and its airports will receive more than 140 private jets. That will happen while the city is hosting supposedly the most climate-conscious politicians in the world.
I say that not by way of criticism—although I would hardly applaud it—but to highlight that it is our actions and not our words that show our true commitment. Of course there will be times when we need to fly to places or travel by car, but each of us needs to consider carefully our actions and our carbon footprint. Engaging fully with the public and with industry is absolutely key if we are successfully to tackle climate change. Scotland's public engagement strategy is due to be published by the end of next year, but I take this opportunity strongly to encourage the minister to do everything in his power to accelerate that timescale as much as possible. The sooner we properly engage with the public on fighting climate change, the better our chance of succeeding.
As the Copenhagen conference opens, we have to measure how we in Scotland can not only contribute to the international discussion but make progress in this country to achieve the goals that we set ourselves in June.
The phrase "getting our ducks in a row" came to mind. In the 1980s, Dr Salter was developing wave power. Had he been given the go-ahead, wave and tidal power might have been developed at a much earlier stage. It is important to recognise that much of the science has been talked about for some while but is only now being developed. I will not go into the reasons for that today, other than to say that it is important that we get our ducks in a row now.
We have a fantastic opportunity. As Jim Mather, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism said:
"We enjoy a vast array of potentially cheap, renewable energy sources and harnessing that potential will create thousands of long-term jobs while reducing emissions."
Our task is to see that we get that done as well as we can.
Where powers over the development of those energy sources lie is an issue that can act as a drag on development. In this debate, I cannot fail to remember that we are working in a competitive situation in relation to energy distribution that was created in the Thatcher period and which is unfit for purpose. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets proposals with which we have had to deal are so difficult to apply that we find ourselves unable to help Britain to reduce its emissions as quickly as we might have done. We need to change those conditions. Sustainability is being built into UK law. The annual energy law—as someone put it—that London passes, is coming soon, and I hope that that will change that form of regulation.
The body that the London Parliament hardly ever seems to hold to account is the Crown Estate. Those people are the tax collectors of the seas and can make a lot of money for the London Treasury, but they are taking far too long to put in place the licences that will help us to develop renewable energy such as tidal and wave power and offshore wind farms in areas such as the Pentland Firth. The processes are complex—the Crown Estate has to see that licensees can deliver. However, the fact is that the Crown Estate is not within the control of the Scottish Parliament, and we need to get that control.
Does the member concede that the critical factor in moving forward with offshore wind and other marine renewables potential lies in the Marine (Scotland) Bill that is going through this very Parliament?
No, I do not. The bill deals with the management of the seas, but we still will not have control over them. The 85 acts that control the seas in this country are not within the control of the Scottish Parliament. Many of them need to be; the member made my point for me very well.
I praise the work of the North Scotland Industries group. Its chief executive, Ian Couper, told its annual general meeting this week:
"By 2013, I want the North of Scotland and the Islands to be recognised as the renewable energy centre for Scotland and the UK … This is where the majority of activity will be happening for the UK and we need to blow our trumpet a bit more, to make more people aware of our strengths in this sector."
We should not only blow our trumpet but make the case that we should have the powers over the development of the sector that will aid the process. It is up to members of the Scottish Parliament to confront some of the issues that are holding back development. It is for that reason that I mentioned UK bodies.
In the energy section of The Press and Journal this week, there is criticism of the failure of some of our well-known high street banks to put up money for the development that needs to take place. Some banks are doing that, but we must ensure that banks that are based in Scotland and which take deposits from Scotland are seen to be using that money for developments in offshore renewables, which pose far less risk than the way in which the banks used our money in the past. It is important that that focus is kept on the banks.
In contrast to the mixture of powers between London and Edinburgh, the EU's policy for renewables development—20/20/20 by 2020—provides us with a lot of opportunities. It is up to us to ensure that we make the most of them, given the North Sea grids that may develop at a later stage and so on.
My final remarks relate to the worldwide scene. On this very day, Latin American peoples have launched a report on monocultures and violations of human rights to adequate food, housing, water, land and territory. It is called "Red Sugar, Green Deserts" and will show how
"Current global agricultural and trade policy, which promotes monoculture-based agriculture, has been designed essentially by the governments of the United States and the European Union. The corporate interests of these countries are strongly reflected in these policies, with devastating impacts in the global South."
We in Scotland believe in supporting people in Africa and that it is necessary to ensure that they can be sustained in their lives. We should not have agricultural policies here that demand monocultures to support our farming. Such issues must be discussed in Copenhagen; I hope to join in that discussion.
The motion points us in the direction of many things that we must do and provides a benchmark for the way forward.
I was pleased to join the wave demonstration last Saturday. I saw Alison McInnes and Sarah Boyack when I greeted the marchers who flowed through the streets of Glasgow to my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin, just over the squinty bridge. I was disappointed not to see Stewart Stevenson in Glasgow, as I know how much he likes it.
I have taken a strong interest in climate change since we passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill—a far-reaching and radical act of the Scottish Parliament that will ensure that we take action at home in Scotland and refrain from relying on buying carbon credits from overseas. Rightly, Patrick Harvie has reminded us twice today that the targets that the bill sets are hard and that they are targets. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is world leading in print but, as others have said, the challenge for all of us—especially the Scottish Government—is to turn that print into reality.
We can see with our own eyes how we got here. We see that our country's climate is changing—it is wetter and a bit warmer than it used to be. If members think about the past—depending on how old they are—they will see that our relative wealth has resulted in our using more energy and landfill. Despite some of the sceptics from whom we have heard this week, I have no doubt that we have been storing up environmental problems for ourselves over all these years. Time is running out to solve them.
As other members have said, at a time when developing countries are expanding their economies and wealth and need the world's natural resources, there is a diminishing capacity for such activity. That is why the Copenhagen summit and the negotiation that will take place around the table about how the world responds are critical. The summit is not really a platform for us to boast about how good we are, although we have passed the right radical legislation.
As other members have said, it is clear that we should not rely on trading carbon emissions or exploit poor countries. Recently I visited India, a country that is expanding rapidly. It has a small carbon footprint per head of population, but a population that is growing by a staggering 14 million every year. It has just announced that it will build five nuclear power stations and is building the largest underground in the world in New Delhi, a city of 16 million inhabitants that is highly polluted, due to the number and range of old vehicles that are on the road.
I had the privilege of meeting the former minister who enforced the conversion to gas of New Delhi's taxis and autoricks—a mode of transport on which people in New Delhi rely a great deal. He says that the difference in New Delhi is staggering. People can now stand at the roadside, if they dare—anyone who has seen the traffic in New Delhi will know what I am talking about—and their shirt will stay white. That is a great achievement by a developing country. I was surprised to see that even the area outside the Taj Mahal is environmentally friendly, with notices on the bins saying "We recycle our plastic bags". Clearly, nowhere is beyond such notices.
The challenge for policy makers and Government is how to make addressing climate change real, part of people's everyday lives and something that they want to participate in.
I have led debates in the Parliament on the regulation of the bus industry, and I support Charlie Gordon's proposed member's bill. In Glasgow the regulation of buses is of concern to those who use them, who tend to have lower incomes. They have a right to have a bus service that meets their transport needs. If we are to persuade other people to make positive travel choices in preference to using their cars, we will have to sort out the bus industry, bring in joint ticketing, and, if necessary, legislate. We need bus lane improvements for faster journeys, as it is faster journeys—
And more reliable journeys.
Yes—faster and more reliable journeys will prompt people to make that choice. Timetable information is crucial. People who are not regular bus users will not get on the bus unless they have the information that tells them where the bus stops and where they can go to. Such practical steps are required to give people positive choices.
Rail is highly important in giving people such choices. I remain to be convinced of the Government's commitment to rail as a positive choice. The cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link was a mistake, as it would have taken some travellers off the roads. More positively, I welcome the joint working between the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change and the Labour Government, which is an example of good interparliamentary activity. Both are committed to high-speed rail, and the minister appreciates the importance of starting that project from Scotland at the same time that it starts from London and the south. That makes perfect economic sense and is not just about fighting our corner.
It is important for the Scottish Government to make the commitment now and to do its bit to ensure that we have the foundation for high-speed rail. That choice might be further away than we would like, but it is important, as I think Rob Gibson said in an intervention, to have shorter journey times from both the central belt and the north of Scotland to London and the south. If we can get the journey time down to the magic three and a half hours, people will make that positive choice.
Our best chance of reaching the climate change targets is to make them a reality for people as they make their individual choices. If we show leadership, we can meet those targets.
That the Parliament passed a world-leading climate change bill is beyond question. That the decision of the Scottish Government to push for an 80 per cent emissions reduction target by 2050 dragged the UK Government in its wake is equally beyond question. To be world leading is to pull others along behind us, to encourage, to persuade or to embarrass them into following our lead. In the case of the UK Government, it must have been embarrassment. There can be no other reason for its churlish refusal to allow Scotland a seat at the Copenhagen table. Other small nations will be there, arguing their case, explaining how the most successful European nations in economic terms can also be the nations that lead the way in combating climate change.
On Saturday 8,000 Scots marched though Glasgow. Many of the members present marched, or flowed—whatever they were doing on the day. The voice of those 8,000 people could clearly be heard in this Parliament, yet they have no voice in Copenhagen. Scotland has made strong commitments on climate change, with a target of a 42 per cent emissions reduction by 2020 and another of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050, and what is decided in Copenhagen will impact on how successful Scotland is in delivering its reduction targets. We need Copenhagen, yet Westminster has not invited Scotland to take a seat in Copenhagen. Other small nations will be there, but not Scotland. The UK will not deign to allow us to control our drink-drive laws or air-gun sales—far less to rise to the giddy heights of speaking at a climate change conference.
Climate change is arguably the single greatest issue on our planet. The World Health Organization estimates that climate change is already causing more than 160,000 deaths a year in the poorer parts of the world and, according to New Scientist, there is a 90 per cent chance that, within 100 years, climate change will force 3 billion people to choose between going hungry and moving their families to milder climes. Yet the poorer are least responsible. The average UK citizen produces the same amount of carbon dioxide in only two and a half days as a Malawian produces in a year. The world's wealthier nations are responsible for 80 per cent of the man-made increase in carbon dioxide. It is surely imperative that the developed countries that are leading the way in cutting greenhouse gas emissions are present at international meetings on the issue. Scotland is undoubtedly leading the way, yet we have no presence, no place at the table and no voice in Copenhagen.
If we are to deliver on our targets, it is vital that we ensure that the massive renewable energy potential of Scotland's seas and coast is fully utilised. Scotland's potential is highlighted in the recent report, "The Power of Scotland Renewed: clean, green energy for the nation's future", which demonstrates that Scotland is capable of delivering a clean, green and secure energy supply.
The report shows that by 2030 Scotland can produce between 60 and 143 per cent of its projected annual electricity demand through renewable energy. The actual level of renewables production, however, will depend on the level of investment and commitment in renewable energy. That is a strong argument against significant investment in nuclear power. Billions invested in nuclear will be billions diverted from research and development in renewables. We lost the opportunity to be world leaders in wind technology, at least in part because the money that we should have been pouring into the infinite resource of renewable energy was instead poured into the finite resource of nuclear power.
Does the member accept that if Scotland chooses to go down the road of being overly reliant on environmentally based energy sources for electricity, it is inevitable that we shall have to enter into partnership with our near neighbour, England, so that, on certain days, we will sell surplus power and on others, when we are deficient, we will buy it back, and that when that energy comes, it will be nuclear generated?
No, I do not accept that. If we are generating power via wind, tidal and wave, and if we use new technologies to store power, it is clear that we will not need to purchase. Furthermore, we can follow the idea of connecting various nations that all use wind power to a supergrid—the wind will always blow in some part of Europe. It is clear that there is no need for nuclear. It is equally clear that we cannot keep relying on finite resources, especially if countries such as China expand substantially their nuclear base, putting ever greater pressure on that finite resource.
That aside, although it is vital that we push forward in investment in renewables, we are losing an opportunity to do so every day, as the £150 million of fossil fuel levy surplus funds, accumulated on Scotland's behalf, sit languishing in a London bank. In Copenhagen, we might be sent like a little Jack Horner to sit in the corner—or even some considerable distance from any corner anywhere near Copenhagen—but whatever corner we sit in there is no plum for us because the £150 million stays firmly in London vaults. It is time for the UK to release Scotland's money to Scotland, and it is time for Scotland to show what a good boy he is by using that £150 million plum to drive forward development in wind, wave and tidal power.
For that reason, we can all support initiatives such as the saltire prize, which is one way of building on Scotland's research and development capacity. To be fair to members, I realise that it is difficult for some on the Tory benches to welcome saltires, terrified as they are that the saltire—the flag of Scotland—might represent some deep nationalist plot. However, I hope that even the Tory party can overcome its saltire phobia and support the aims of the saltire prize.
The Marine (Scotland) Bill represents another opportunity—the opportunity to simplify the planning and building of renewable energy stations along the coasts and in the seas of Scotland. However, development in Scotland's seas must take account of the need to protect and enhance biodiversity and be based on a sound scientific assessment of the environmental impact of any new development.
To ensure success in delivering Scotland's commitments to the 42 and 80 per cent reductions, we must involve the people of Scotland. That is, of course, what both the climate challenge fund, which is £27.4 million over three years, and the comprehensive energy package, which is £55.8 million per year, are about. The first allows community groups to make their contribution to tackling climate change; and the second aims both to help the most vulnerable members of our society and to reduce energy demand. There are also opportunities in public transport. I am sure that the minister is aware of the proposals for the fast link between Glasgow and Renfrew. I recommend it as a fine opportunity to cut carbon demand and improve transport links between Glasgow and Renfrew.
You should conclude now.
I will finish today not with McGonagall—I know that some members will be disappointed—but with Burns, who wrote:
"The billows on the ocean,The breezes idly roaming".
Therein lies Scotland's future. Today the deluded swains are the followers of nuclear energy and the climate change-denying dupes of multinational corporations.
In past times, Voltaire said:
"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation".
Once again, Scotland has much to contribute. The question is: will she be gagged and restrained, or will she have the power to act and speak out?
I think you were okay with Burns, but perhaps not with Voltaire.
I cannot follow that.
Nor would we want you to.
I am pleased to be taking part in this debate on climate change. I hope that the debate will send out a signal to all those who are participating in the Copenhagen meeting that the Scottish Parliament takes seriously its commitment to the stringent targets that we set when we voted unanimously earlier this year to support the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. That groundbreaking legislation should ensure that we set an example for others to follow in meeting the unprecedented environmental challenge that nations around the globe currently face.
Despite the recent severe flooding episodes that have afflicted people in the north of England, the Borders and parts of north-east Scotland, which were terrible for them, our problems are as nothing compared to the devastation that people in some of the poorest and most heavily populated parts of the world will face unless early action is taken to achieve a significant reduction in the volume of greenhouse gases that are emitted from our terrestrial activities.
Of course, there have always been cyclical variations in climate, but I have seen enough in recent years to convince me that there is more going on than that. The increase in the melting of the Arctic ice cap in 2008, which was sufficient to clear the north-west and north-east shipping passages north of Canada and Siberia of ice for the first time in probably thousands of years; the loss of glacier snow in the French Alps, which requires artificial snow to secure the ski season; the extended growing season in our gardens; and the early mating of birds—to name but a few examples—all convince me that global warming is real and that urgent action must be taken if world temperature rises are to be kept below the critical 2°C, above which there are likely to be very serious consequences of flooding or drought for vulnerable countries.
The consequences of unmitigated climate change pose a long-term threat to political stability and economic growth. In a recent speech, William Hague MP, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said:
"in areas dogged by conflict, instability, terrorism, poverty and scarcity, global warming has the ability to act as a ‘threat multiplier'. Disagreements between countries could increase as tensions rise and existing problems are exposed."
He went on to say that the 2,500 mile-long "security barrier" that has been constructed by India along its border with Bangladesh to reduce existing high levels of migration would be put under enormous strain by the potential increase in migrant numbers were the sea level to rise by just 1m, which would permanently flood a fifth of Bangladesh and endanger the lives of some 30 million people. That is just one example—there are many more in other parts of the world where global warming is a serious political threat, as well as a physical threat, to the people who live there.
There is a growing international acceptance that action needs to be taken urgently to tackle climate change, that the developed world has to be serious about cutting its emissions of greenhouse gases, and that it must support developing countries to allow them to undertake the significant action that is required if they are to do likewise.
Of course, Scotland's contribution to global emissions is relatively small, but given that it is the birthplace of the industrial revolution, it is right that we take some responsibility for climate change. We have the proven ability to show leadership in the fight-back against it, and our commitment to the stiff targets that were set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 show that we as a country are serious about that. We must strive to ensure that the targets are met if we are to do our fair share in fighting climate change.
As others have said, to be successful we must all work together as countries, Governments, businesses and individuals. We must all do our bit. It is heartening that at an individual level more and more people are looking at their lifestyles: they are seeking to reduce their energy consumption, improve insulation of their homes, reduce the amount of waste that they send to landfill and generally be aware of the importance of reducing our carbon footprints.
However, Governments have to take the lead and I am encouraged by my party's statement at UK level. I will repeat Alex Johnstone's quotation, because it is important: UK Conservatives have said that any deal agreed at Copenhagen must be a rigorous one that
"binds the world in a common commitment to keep the rise of global temperatures to below 2 degrees C, which finds an international mechanism to help people in the poorest countries to protect themselves against future floods, famine and drought, in addition to what they need to help relieve their current poverty, and which stops the destruction of the world's rain forest."
Within the past two weeks, five members of the shadow Cabinet, including the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, have made significant speeches committing a future Conservative Government to giving high priority to caring for the environment and putting forward proposals for action, should we be fortunate enough to form the UK Government after next year's general election.
My party is serious about fighting climate change and about achieving the stringent targets that were laid down in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. In agreement with the motion that we are debating today, we look to the participants in the Copenhagen talks to be ambitious in their efforts to fight global warming and to reach a political agreement that will, at the earliest possible opportunity, lead to a legally binding commitment to keep the rise in world temperatures at or below 2°C.
I hope that the minister finds his visit to Copenhagen as informative as those of us who went there in April as part of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's energy inquiry found ours to be. He will be interested to learn that, in a leafy suburb of Copenhagen, we visited a waste combustion plant that supplies the district heating system that serves that community. I hope that he will agree that we must take a similar approach to energy from waste, if Scotland's local councils are to meet their obligations to reduce landfilling with waste, and if ministers are to meet their targets for renewable heat. We need political leadership to achieve that.
We discovered that district heating is the rule in Denmark rather than the exception. Many district heating systems there use fossil fuels. In central Copenhagen, for example, the minister may be warmed on his visit by a heating system that is fuelled by steam from a coal-fired power station, because district heating is recognised in Denmark as being beneficial in its own right, whether it is fuelled by coal, gas, waste or wood. The reason is simple: if all of a town or city is served by a single source of heat, it will by definition make far more efficient use of energy than if every single household has its own separate heat source. Even more significantly, if a district heating system is already in place, the process of conversion to a lower carbon fuel in the future will be relatively straightforward and is likely to have a very significant impact in respect of carbon reduction and climate change.
In the urban context, the kind of scheme that the minister will see in Copenhagen offers the opportunity for mass conversion of households to low-carbon energy in the future. It is crucial that that happens on a larger scale.
The minister recognised, during the passage of what is now the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, the relevance of district heating and of combined heat and power. He was generous in acknowledging the example that has been set by Aberdeen Heat and Power Ltd, which leads in this country in provision of combined heat and power to domestic properties. He also agreed to alter the rating position of CHP schemes to match the position in England, where more of the schemes are exempt from non-domestic rates. I am pleased that ministers have since then published draft regulations and consulted on them. I hope that they will acknowledge the concern that has been raised in that consultation that simply to replicate the English regulations will not, on its own, do the trick, because regulations south of the border are not designed to take into account the common areas that are typical of many high-rise properties here in Scotland.
I would not expect to chide Stewart Stevenson very often for being unwilling to take a different approach from England, but in this case I hope that ministers will take a lead and go beyond even the good example that has been set by Westminster, in order to reflect Scottish circumstances and Scottish housing, and that they will go further to reduce the costs that face those who seek to set up district heating or combined heat and power schemes in Scotland in the future.
I suggest that Lewis Macdonald does not need to go as far as Copenhagen to see such schemes. He mentioned the ones in Aberdeen, but he may also be interested in the one in Banchory, which has received from the Scottish Government grants to develop biomass.
Indeed. As Maureen Watt says, biomass is the fuel for a number of schemes in rural Scotland. That is a good development and one that I wholly support. In the urban context, it may not be possible immediately to do that, which is why I think that a different approach is needed.
It is not simply a case of reducing local tax liability if we are to see the new approach happen: we also need political will and Government investment. I am disappointed that, in the current financial year, Scottish ministers have not invested in district heating any of the £2 million in consequentials that they received because of Westminster spending in that area. I hope that we will see a different approach. That £2 million could go a long way in advancing CHP schemes, such as are being planned in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, or the community heating aspects of the sustainable Glasgow project. Scottish Government spending on new CHP in those cities would send a positive message to all the communities and businesses that are considering making more efficient use of energy by capturing surplus heat. The Sustainable Development Commission advised ministers to progress renewable heat by supporting district heating schemes in the short term, even when those may start life by using fossil fuels. Such schemes will make immediate carbon savings and help to cut fuel poverty, and beyond 2020 their conversion to renewable fuels will enable us to make a step change in efforts to meet low-carbon targets, given the scale involved.
The Scottish Government's consultation on energy efficiency acknowledged those points, but its renewable heat action plan for Scotland did not. I hope that ministers will consider aligning both strategies behind support for district heating. If they do so, they will put Scotland in a much better position to be able to meet its carbon reduction targets in the years ahead.
As Sarah Boyack said, we want the Scottish Government to deliver on its promises of support for microgeneration of renewable electricity and domestic-scale production of renewable heat. It is therefore important that Scotland should adopt the right system of feed-in tariffs for microrenewable generation. The trade association for the electrical industry in Scotland, Select, has devised a scheme in line with the relevant European Union directive, but there seems to be some doubt about how certification for microgeneration will be done. I hope that the minister can clarify the position and ensure that the scheme that is adopted does not place an undue burden on consumers who want to install microgeneration in their homes.
There is little doubt that climate change is happening, and we do not have to look far for evidence of the change. There has been record rainfall in a single day, when a foot of rain fell in 24 hours. November, which is normally a wet month, was the wettest month ever recorded. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the first decade of this millennium is set to be the warmest since records began 250 years ago.
The effects of climate change on biodiversity are tragic, and climate change affects not just plants and animals but us, sometimes with tragic results, as we saw recently in Cumbria. Last month in Hawick, in my region, the voluntary flood group sprang into action for the first time since the damaging flood of 2005. Flooding has become a major issue throughout the region. Bowmont valley's worst flood in living memory was followed the next year by a similar flood, and problems at the Whitesands area of Dumfries are worsening.
As I said at question time today, the Hawick flood group and local NFU Scotland members said before and after the recent floods that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency should, in order to prevent flooding, allow clearing of gravel and dislodged trees from rivers, as used to happen. We must revisit the issue as climate change makes flooding events more common.
Further afield, droughts in Australia mean that once-viable farmland is becoming unsuitable for vital food production. Who knows what medicines might be lost to us if more plants in rainforests and elsewhere become extinct? As we all know, the loss of Arctic ice threatens to alter our planet for generations to come. The north-west passage is more navigable this year than it has ever been and the extent of Arctic ice in 2007, 2008 and 2009 was at its lowest since records began. Melting ice not only raises the sea level but releases trapped methane—a greenhouse gas—into the atmosphere, in a vicious circle that will further increase global warming.
We must concentrate on what we can do to combat the threat. Individuals can all sign up to the 10:10 campaign and pledge to produce 10 per cent less carbon by the end of 2010. There has already been good work in the Parliament. We united to pass the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill in June. I am glad that the minister mentioned forestry, because part of my input to the bill was about preventing the Government from going ahead with the bizarre proposal to sell off a quarter of our public forests.
Can Jim Hume tell us the current planting level and explain why planting is at its lowest for many years? What will he do to ensure that there is far more planting?
It is for the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to find methods of encouraging forestry. Selling off forests through lifetime leases to private banks would not have helped to encourage planting. There would have been a loss of income from timber and we would have lost control over our forests, whatever the agreements said. As we know, our forests are a necessary resource for industry and are places that communities and tourists can access.
Peaty soils and agriculture can also play an important part. Livestock can play an important part in maintaining our countryside and providing natural fertilisation of soils. Grazing land encourages the growth of plants, which absorb CO2.
Our Liberal Democrat minister Ross Finnie started the process by being the first to introduce climate change targets, and now we have set ambitious targets for Scotland with the 2009 act, which is widely recognised. At a recent European and External Relations Committee meeting, we were reliably informed that Scotland is seen as a leading light in terms of climate change targets. Therefore, it was a case of double standards for Mr Miliband not to allow the Scottish Government to attend Copenhagen officially, as Jack McConnell attended the earth summit in 2002.
We must also remember that it was the Lib Dems who held out for 42 per cent by 2020 in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. We remained unswayed throughout the process. However, we all know that the targets mean nothing unless we achieve them.
The much-fanfared heating insulation scheme will spend a third of its funding on administration, which is a bit concerning, and not a penny will be spent south of the central belt, which is a concern for my area. Climate change measures should not be a postcode lottery. They should also not be a country lottery. The key nation in the world is the USA. If it does not sign up to legally binding targets, there is a threat that others, such as Australia, Japan and Canada, will follow suit. That would be a backward step for us all. Climate change is happening now and action is needed now.
The Government motion is correct to focus on the world threat of climate change, especially in vulnerable developing countries. We have started the process in Scotland, and the UK Government needs to follow with a 42 per cent reduction by 2020. Europe can be a big player in influencing world policy, so I urge all the delegates at Copenhagen to come out with a worthy successor to the Kyoto protocol that will ensure action now to tackle global warming head on.
The Copenhagen conference has been billed as the most important international conference for a generation, and rightly so. A great deal is riding on the decisions that will be made by the men and women who have the responsibility to deliver a fair and binding agreement that will prevent the world from careering headlong into a man-made catastrophe.
Other members have spoken about many of the facets that must be included in any legally binding agreement, but I will focus initially on just one: adequate finance for mitigation against, and adaptation to, climate change in developing countries.
The Prime Minister has proposed that $100 billion should be raised globally per year for such a fund. That would certainly be a very welcome step in the right direction if it could be globally agreed, and it is good to see that the UK Government has taken a lead on the issue. However, non-governmental organisations such as Christian Aid believe that developed countries must go further than that and that at least $150 billion is needed. I hope that progress like that can be made in Copenhagen.
Of even more concern is the UK's proposal that 10 per cent of such climate financing should come from the international aid budget. Such a move would be retrograde and unacceptable. Climate finance is, after all, compensation from developed countries that have got rich by jeopardising the sustainability of the planet. It must not come at the expense of an already overstretched aid budget.
Although I will not travel to Copenhagen with some of my committee colleagues, I am pleased that the minister will attend to take part in events that will focus on our ambitious climate change framework. With this Parliament having passed some of the world's most ambitious legislation, it is only right that we should have the opportunity to set out our proposals to others on the world stage. The world is watching and those who are taking part in the negotiations need to hear clear examples from countries that have set tough and challenging targets. That is a policy area where Scotland is, and should remain, an example to the rest of the world. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the UK Government has, by not allowing the minister to be part of the official UK delegation, not taken the opportunity to promote the Scottish Parliament's act with pride on a world stage, and to challenge others to raise their game as Scotland has done.
Despite that recent decision, I am pleased that the minister has said in the past that he has a good working relationship with his Westminster counterpart. I welcome that, because progress towards Scotland meeting its ambitious climate change targets will be directly influenced by a range of measures that are reserved to Westminster or governed by EU-wide regulations. For example, the emissions reduction targets for the EU emissions trading scheme—the largest carbon-trading scheme in the world—are set at EU level. Key fiscal levers to tackle climate change—including vehicle excise duty, fuel duty, driver licensing, speed limits on motorways and landfill tax—are all reserved to Westminster, while responsibility for road pricing, smarter transport measures and transport infrastructure are generally devolved. Those are but a few examples to demonstrate how we must all work together constructively across the Parliaments and political divides to deliver real change.
The motion rightly recognises that we must now focus on practical implementation. With the powers that the Scottish Government has, I am pleased that steps are being taken towards meeting the ambitious targets that are set in the 2009 act. First, with heat generation being responsible for no less than 50 per cent of current energy demands in Scotland, it is pleasing that the renewable heat action plan will ensure that the topic gets the attention that it requires, although progress in that area will also have to rely on action at UK level, with the renewable heat initiative that is planned for 2011. However, by targeting information at the biggest users of heat, by developing skills, by investing in renewable heat installations and by taking a number of other measures, the Scottish Government is making a welcome contribution to expanding the role of renewable heat. By 2020, in Scotland, heat from renewables will be more than 11 per cent of the total, which will be a welcome increase from the present level of 1.4 per cent.
Secondly, but on a similar theme, funding for microgeneration has been tripled, which is another measure that will help householders, small businesses and communities play a role in meeting climate change targets and, which is important, in creating jobs.
Thirdly, I welcome the continued good news that is generated by the climate challenge fund, which is yet another investment in community innovation to tackle climate change. Edinburgh benefited to the tune of £1.2 million in the recent round of awards, including £750,000 for the Bike Station project, which helps employers help staff to cut down on their car use, and £340,000 to support the University of Edinburgh in taking student and staff cars off the road. Those are local Edinburgh examples, but forward-thinking projects up and down the country also benefited in the same round.
As we look forward to debating the budget next week, we should welcome the Scottish Government's carbon assessment of the budget. If we are to expect and demand change in the approach of businesses, communities and individuals, it is only right and proper that Government, too, casts a critical eye over its own actions and policies. That is another welcome innovation that is truly world leading.
I join those who are urging—indeed, demanding—an ambitious agreement from Copenhagen. I support the Government's call for a renewed focus on practical action and I continue to support the leadership that the Government has shown in that regard.
I apologise to members and to the minister for missing the first couple of minutes of his speech. No doubt, given past practice, he would have told us how he will get to Copenhagen. There is an interesting debate to be had about the sensible use of air travel in particular circumstances versus the approach that Mr Harvie has taken in such circumstances. Perhaps we need to debate that issue more widely.
No one could doubt, however, Stewart Stevenson's personal commitment to reduce his carbon footprint, nor could they doubt the efforts that he and his officials have made to map out what might need to be done to take forward the climate change targets. My concern is whether the Government as a whole is committed, not just in principle but in practice, to bringing forward the choices that are needed to meet the targets that we have set ourselves. The focus has to be on delivery. I understand what Shirley-Anne Somerville said about the minister going to Copenhagen and talking about the example that might be set by Scotland's legislation, but how much more effective would it be if we could go to Copenhagen and talk to people about the example that we have set by our delivery of climate change reductions? Delivery, delivery, delivery is what is important; everything else, I am afraid, is rhetoric.
Even within his portfolio, Mr Stevenson presides over a twin-track strategy in which the different elements seem to point in opposite directions. He gives us all the right words on climate change, but the actions in transport often go in the opposite direction. I am not in Mr Harvie's fundamentalist anti-roads camp, but it seems to me that there has been no sign yet of a fundamental review of the road building programme to take account of climate change commitments. That is only one dimension of the Government's budget and spending profile that has to be looked at in the context of climate change.
If we are to be serious about climate change, we almost have to go back to first principles and ask, "What do we need to do to actually make the kind of changes that we're saying we want to happen?" We cannot have a situation whereby the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 exists in a vacuum and we occasionally genuflect to it and say, "Aren't we all wonderful? We've passed the most challenging climate change bill in the world," but do nothing whatsoever about it in reality.
In our discussions on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, the key issue for me from the beginning was the need for an interim target. I thought that it was entirely pointless to talk about what we will do by 2050 if we could not talk sensibly about what we will do by 2020. One reason for that is the urgency of the need, given what we know about what is happening to the global climate. A second reason is that, if we did not include a 2020 target, it would be all too easy for Governments to keep deferring action by saying that the process would start tomorrow rather than today. In fact, we really needed to start the process yesterday and yesterday and yesterday.
We will not know whether the current interim target has been set at the right level until we get the Committee on Climate Change's report, which was due to be published by the end of the year but which we now hear will come out in February or March. We know that whatever agreement is reached at Copenhagen will affect what we can do here, but whatever happens in Copenhagen should not be an excuse to lower the target. If the target needs to be revised, any revision should happen in the context of what is achievable here in Scotland. There must be a scientific proper analysis of what we can practically do in a rigorous way to take forward the agenda. We need to base our approach on the science of what can be achieved, as well as on the science that describes the trends in global warming.
Members know that I have a particular interest in development issues, on which there was much discussion in the context of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. We considered what impact such measures would have on the wider world and how our actions on climate change need to be integrated with the aid and support that we give to other countries. I am not sure whether the Government has yet established its final position, although it previously opposed Labour's proposals. I would certainly like ministers to make a clear statement on how their climate change proposals will interface with our relationships with other countries.
Let me end by perhaps disagreeing once again—in a good way, I hope—with Patrick Harvie. He said that a consensus exists in Scotland on what we should be doing, and I agree that we have a political consensus in favour of tackling climate change. He is right to say that we do not seem to have quite as many deniers of climate change in Scotland as perhaps are found in other places—although they might just be a bit more silent in Scotland and do not speak up quite as loudly as they do elsewhere—but I do not think that we should waste any time by focusing on climate change deniers.
However, a crucial element of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was a public engagement strategy, which should tackle the indifference and lack of knowledge about climate change, both about the problem and about what practical steps we can take. That is our enemy here. If we can engage the whole of civic Scotland including the churches, the schools and everyone with an interest in the issue—as well as those who are perhaps not sufficiently interested yet, but who are demanding knowledge and need to be informed—we can develop that strategy to ensure that it makes a significant difference. The public engagement strategy might actually be the most influential part of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 if it engages the whole people of Scotland. That is certainly the provision that I was personally involved in during consideration of the bill and of which I am proudest. The public engagement strategy won commitment from across the parties, so I hope that members from all political sides will be involved in that.
I look forward very much to the minister's strategy being published in the next couple of months.
Perhaps it has been that kind of debate, but even though Des McNulty said that he would disagree with me, he then said things that I do not really disagree with. I welcome all the speeches that we have heard in the debate. Many have stressed the importance of the consensus, to such an extent as that exists, that we now have. Let me say again that I agree about that.
However, sometimes the things that are not said in such debates are the most important. For example, I do not recall any member answering the questions that I raised on the extent to which we can allow aviation to grow. I will be interested to hear what the minister says about that in his closing remarks.
Can we contemplate a future for Scotland if we allow the projected growth in aviation, which still seems to inform Government policy, to proceed, or do we need to do what the UK Committee on Climate Change has suggested or, indeed, go further and fly less instead of more? Any Government minister for climate change will be able to come to the chamber and read out a long list of the things that he is doing well—the actions that are busily being taken in every department in every office of the Scottish Government—but the other list of achievements, which are proudly announced when we debate the economy, is very different. That list includes infrastructure and economic policy decisions that will generate higher rather than lower levels of emissions. We never hear that list of achievements being read out in climate change debates. It is the policies that ministers never mention in climate change debates that we need to face up to, and we need to begin to do that now, rather than continually pat ourselves on the back for achieving consensus.
I am sorry that I will not have time to reply to every member who spoke in the debate, all of whom made important and serious points, but I will try to respond to what some members said. Sarah Boyack spoke optimistically—and reasonably so—about the chances of a constructive deal being agreed at Copenhagen, even if it cannot be made a legally binding treaty quite yet. She also stressed the UK Government's role in providing leadership and identified the Scottish Government's shortcomings on electric vehicles, community heating, household renewables and translating ambition into action, which has been my theme, too. Even on issues such as energy efficiency and cutting our energy demand, we do not have consensus. We agree on the fuel poverty objectives, but we have not yet found a way to incorporate the climate change and energy security objectives, which we must work on consistently. We need to recognise that a three-pronged approach is necessary. Some of us favour a universal approach; others favour targeting. For many years, our targeting has failed.
Alex Johnstone expressed concern that he had not dragged his feet enough during consideration of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill but, seriously, I recognise his desire to represent the country's economic interests as he sees them, even if we disagree on the basic assumptions behind that. In this Parliament, we heard nothing of the irrational, anti-science rhetoric that we hear elsewhere. No MSP could fairly be labelled as the Melanie Phillips of Holyrood, and we can be extremely grateful for that.
The consensus on intent has been hard won, but we must not delude ourselves that consensus covers every detail of action. Alex Johnstone and I will not agree on the emphasis that he placed on the role of the free market, but I put to him an issue that the operation of the publicly owned banks raises. RBS is still investing substantial amounts of what is now our money in tar sands, which could be one of the most polluting fuels on the planet. Alex Johnstone might point out to me that if RBS were to pull out of that, another bank would step in to fill the hole in investment. That illustrates the fundamental problem with leaving our efforts on climate change in the hands of the free market.
Alison McInnes recognised that the issue of Scottish ministers having formal status in the UK delegation is less important than what is said, and I agree. We should move on from that debate and work together to ensure that we make Scotland's case for other developed countries to take more ambitious action.
Like Des McNulty, Alison McInnes also mentioned politicians' personal responsibilities when it comes to our travel choices. I do not want to make an issue of that right now, but in the future it will be for the Parliament, corporately, to take action on the development of a meaningful sustainable transport policy, because it will be a matter of shame if we cannot provide leadership in that area. There might be times when using a more sustainable form of transport will take more time out of our lives or cost more money, which might mean taking fewer people or going on visits less often, but we will have to do something on that front.
I have covered the banks issue that Rob Gibson raised, on which I wanted to reply, so I finish by replying to Pauline McNeill, who talked about making tackling climate change part of our lives. That means expressing priorities in ways that are relevant to real people. Phrases such as "alternatives to GDP" sound a bit academic and pointy headed. Measuring and valuing the things that matter, such as human relationships, good health, time to spend with our families and happiness, are among the ideas that we need to communicate properly to people. If we do that, we can replace the shallow and selfish values of consumerism with something more humane, viable and liveable. That is the challenge that we must resolve before we can say that we have consensus on action.
Consensus has been a consistent theme this afternoon, but that has not prevented the debate from being usefully robust. There is consensus on the seriousness of the challenges that we face with climate change and on the scale of the response that is needed. As Patrick Harvie said, the chamber is blessed in harbouring no so-called flat-earthers, knuckle dragging or otherwise. My colleague Alison McInnes and other members have stated and demonstrated that that consensus does not reflect a lack of willingness to debate and disagree on the actions that we need to take and the timeframe in which they must be taken.
As all eyes focus on Copenhagen, it is right that members take pride in our achievements to date while they recognise and restate that the hard work is still very much ahead of us. In that context, I hope that ministers accept that the concerns that Sarah Boyack, Alex Johnstone and other members have expressed about slower than expected progress in certain areas since the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was passed were expressed in the hope that the issues can be addressed. Given the timeframes within which we now operate and the targets that we have set ourselves, particularly in the interim, we simply do not have the luxury of allowing progress to stall. Indeed, it is increasingly apparent that we stand little chance of achieving our longer-term ambitions without early, radical action.
We should not be under the illusion that significant behavioural changes will not be needed, particularly by those of us who are fortunate to have been brought up in the developed world. There are certainly some quick wins that will require relatively little effort or resources from us, but, even in the case of energy efficiency, the need to scale up what we do is becoming ever more pressing. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee identified that recently. There are significant opportunities for developing and exploiting the technologies that will drive our low-carbon and zero-carbon economies, but it would be wrong to delude ourselves into thinking that technological development will offset the need for major behavioural change on our part. I accept that those concerns lay behind Patrick Harvie's decision to lodge his amendment to the motion, but a competition to see who has the hairiest hair shirt serves limited purpose. We made our statement of intent in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Like Patrick Harvie and others, I fully intend to ensure that the Government and those who are responsible for delivering its objectives—I include myself in that, as Pauline McNeill included herself—are held to account regularly and robustly.
Of course, however much we are invited to pat ourselves on the back for adopting our legislation, we need to be realistic about the direct impact that it will have on global emissions levels. As Alison McInnes said, Scotland's achievement of emissions reductions of 42 per cent, 80 per cent or even 100 per cent will register only a blip on the global scale. Equally, it would be wrong to underestimate the influence that we can still have in Copenhagen and beyond. I have little doubt that the provisions of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 will be cast up in the faces of legislators and regulators from around the world as evidence of what could be adopted elsewhere. I am sure that that will be Richard Dixon's mission for the rest of the week when his train finally arrives in Copenhagen, assuming that a free bike is still available to get him to the conference centre.
I agree entirely with the point that Des McNulty made about delivery. However, it is regrettable and was somewhat petty that UK ministers excluded Scottish ministers from being part of the formal delegation, although I remind Bill Wilson that loving the saltire does not require people to dress up in it every day of the week.
Of course, Scotland's influence ought to be felt in a more direct and practical sense. With its competitive lead in the development of marine energy technology—principally wave and tidal technology—Scotland is ideally placed to play its full part in leading a global renewables revolution and harnessing and exporting technological and supply chain expertise in the years ahead. In that regard, I make my now customary plea to the Government to introduce a dedicated marine research and development scheme to build on the success of the wave and tidal energy support—WATES—scheme. That, with an urgent focus on addressing grid requirements, is key to unlocking the potential of that important sector.
It is worth noting that there are real concerns about the approach that is being taken by ministers with regard to the proposals for new coal-fired generation at Hunterston, as Patrick Harvie said. I accept the potential benefits that CCS can deliver in the future and fully support Scottish Power's bid to pilot a scheme at scale at Longannet, but there is a world of difference between retrofitting CCS to reduce existing emissions and sanctioning new-build generation—with its consequent emissions—unabated or only partially abated by CCS. I am sure that we will return to that issue in the chamber in the weeks and months ahead.
In the meantime, with the focus squarely on Copenhagen, let me make clear what I believe needs to emerge. As others have said, Copenhagen needs to produce a fair, ambitious and binding agreement. Despite earlier pessimistic predictions, it appears that the outcome is back in the balance. I do not think that portentous declarations that we have two weeks in which to save the planet are accurate or even helpful, but there is no doubt that we are running out of time to strike the type of binding deal that is necessary to avert the catastrophic impacts of climate change.
The paradox of the developed world creating the lion's share of the problems and the developing world bearing the lion's share of the consequences is shaming, as Stewart Stevenson said. As well as limiting our emissions in the developed world and tying the developing world into tough targets, a properly funded finance package is therefore crucial, as Shirley-Anne Somerville said. That support—like other steps that we must take as a matter of increasing urgency—cannot become a victim of the squeeze on public finances.
We have been treated to a strangely stimulating flavour of consensus this afternoon. Alex Johnstone's attempt to fold Patrick Harvie into a warm, consensual embrace was particularly remarkable. Indeed, if such a thing is possible, the challenge of achieving a fair, ambitious and binding agreement in Copenhagen is not beyond us.
I declare an interest as a farmer and welcome the Government's debate on climate change. I offer our party's support for the motion, as far as it goes.
Every Government and individual has a duty to leave things better than they found them; after all, that is how society advances. However, at the moment, the UK Government is failing in that objective. Britain is close to bankruptcy due to the Labour Government's mismanagement of the economy, and climate change is now threatening to change our planet, certainly not for the better and perhaps irreversibly. Polar, Greenland and tundra snow and ice are melting. Feedback loops are reducing the reflective, protective cover that our planet needs and, as Nanette Milne noted, we are moving towards a +2°C world. We therefore need to start taking real decisions that will begin to reduce our carbon output now.
We have heard from the minister about the benefits of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which we all supported, and the need for Copenhagen to come to legally binding and deliverable objectives. Sarah Boyack and Alex Johnstone spoke about that, and the Conservatives agree. However, results from that act are some way off, and we need to take implementing action now—although we all have different ideas about what needs to be done, as Patrick Harvie noted.
I agree with the Met Office and William Hague that climate change is one of the biggest threats that humanity faces. In Scotland, some of the likely effects on us will be increased flooding and storminess, sea level rises leading to coastal inundation, and tidal surges threatening both the upper Clyde and, particularly, the upper Forth.
If we in Scotland expect our aim to reduce carbon emissions to be taken seriously, we must start by accepting that nuclear power generation must be included in the mix of energy provision. In a war situation such as we are now in, with our country threatened by climate change—one has only to remember the recent flooding—we must throw every resource that we have at fighting off the challenge. In Scotland, we cannot be regarded as being serious about winning the battle unless the Government accepts that nuclear power generation is a low-risk, proven technology that can quickly reduce our carbon output.
Although the authors of the Wood Mackenzie report, which was published yesterday, were expressly instructed by the Scottish Government not to consider nuclear power as an option for Scotland, they obliquely noted that nuclear power will continue to play a role in the wider European market. That is as close as they could come to endorsing nuclear power without actually saying it.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
The Scottish power-generating industry believes that nuclear power must be part of the future mix—although Bill Wilson does not—even with limited supplies of uranium available to us.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have a lot to say.
Yesterday's appointment of Ian Marchant as chair of the 2020 delivery group is very much to be welcomed. He has spoken positively of the need to embrace nuclear power and renewables, and I hope that he and his group will convince our Government of the necessity of that mix.
We need to consider planting more trees, as well as considering geo-engineering solutions to absorb more carbon, although I do not believe that it will make strategic sense to plant up good agricultural land—that is the farmer in me speaking—which must be kept available for food production in a daily more hungry world and a strategically more vulnerable UK, in food-production terms. Indeed, as John Beddington has recently pointed out, by 2030—only 20 years from now—we will need to produce 50 per cent more food worldwide using less land, less water, less energy and less pesticide while producing no more carbon than we currently do. That means that Scotland, the UK and Europe must again consider genetically modified crops if we are to be considered serious in our intention to feed future generations without increasing our carbon output.
In addition, we in Scotland have to consider ways of protecting ourselves from the increased risk of sea level rise and storm surges, which pose a real threat to the upper Forth and Clyde. At the moment, an opportunity exists—as the minister is aware—to protect the upper Forth by creating a barrage across the Forth instead of building a new bridge. A barrage would protect Grangemouth oil refinery and Longannet from tidal surges and sea level rise, as well as protecting Bo'ness, Grangemouth and Kincardine. In addition, it could take all the traffic, and more, that a new bridge could carry and, given the tidal rise and fall in the Forth, it could also generate electricity, which would enable it to pay for itself in the long term.
A Forth barrage would provide several bangs for the one buck: storm surge protection for towns and key installations, the provision of a new Forth crossing and the generation of renewable electricity. Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy might consider offering to develop and finance that idea, as it would, in the long run, provide renewable base-load generating capacity and free up £2 billion in a shrunken Scottish Government budget while providing a market solution to some of the above problems.
We wish Stewart Stevenson well at Copenhagen, and we regret that he has not been properly included as part of a UK delegation, as Shirley-Anne Somerville noted. Given how much the Labour Government at Westminster talks about inclusion, it is bizarre how exclusive it becomes when confronted with the realities of the devolution settlement that it created. As is the case with the economy and the stalling for years over the development of a nuclear programme, the Labour Government's inability to confront realities and situations of its own making when they occur serves the country poorly.
Procrastination is the thief of time, and we have little time left to start reducing our carbon output, as Des McNulty acknowledged.
This has been a really good debate with a lot of excellent input. I absolutely agree with the minister that we have a moral duty to deal with climate change.
The Scottish Parliament has a good record on climate change. We have been recognised throughout the world for the groundbreaking Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 that we passed earlier this year. As Sarah Boyack said, it is radical legislation that takes a radical approach. The 2009 act has been strengthened by the widespread endorsement that it has received from organisations that campaigned for strong climate change legislation. I pay tribute to those organisations for their invaluable input to the development of that act. Undoubtedly, those organisations have helped to win the hearts and minds of many people in Scotland. We need only witness the number of people who turned up at the wave demonstration on Saturday.
That said, there are still some who doubt or even deny that climate change is a reality. They will seize on any excuse to belittle the science and denounce action on climate change, as Des McNulty said. However, we know that the evidence is overwhelming and we should not allow ourselves to be distracted from the challenge ahead.
The longest journey starts with a single step. We should never underestimate the importance of individual actions. The cumulative impact of millions of people making different choices—from children who learn to switch off lights to motorists who leave the car and walk—can make a massive contribution. That message needs to be constantly reinforced through public engagement and participation.
I appreciate the verbal and written commitments from the Government, and I know that some things can take time to sort out, but time is something that we do not have much of, especially given the size of the task that is ahead of us. We need action now, and we need to know that the plans are progressing quickly and not getting lost in the corridors of power.
It has often been observed that the longer we take to get things moving, the more we have to do. There are, of course, many benefits from moving on quickly. Investing in energy efficiency—which Lewis Macdonald mentioned—recycling, renewables, public transport and active travel will bring benefits beyond the mitigation of climate change; it will benefit the economy, the environment and people's health, wealth and wellbeing.
We need to make progress, and we must involve the public and public bodies. A public engagement strategy is essential. We need to move forward together as a country to tackle climate change. Our local authorities and other public bodies have a crucial role to play in taking action against climate change. They have a public duty to consider what they do, and in achieving their aims they must consider how they are meeting the climate change objectives.
Local authorities can help by providing better insulation; using energy more efficiently; using microgeneration for new and upgraded buildings; improving public transport and making it more accessible; providing family-friendly, flexible working arrangements that reduce commuting and rush-hour traffic; and reducing waste and increasing recycling.
Local authorities can contribute not only through actions in their own organisations, but through their role in supporting and enabling planning, to ensure that communities grow in ways that minimise their carbon footprint; through their role in the local economy, to encourage good practice and the development of green jobs; and through their role in education and training, to raise the awareness of staff and students through courses that take account of climate change opportunities. Public bodies can also contribute through public procurement, as they have enormous power and influence over the ways in which goods and services are delivered.
The Scottish Government is obliged to introduce guidance for public bodies on the implementation of public duties. That guidance needs to be discussed and developed with stakeholders, and the sooner that process begins, the better.
I note the publication this week of Scotland's climate change adaptation framework. It is a step in the right direction and provides some of the information that we need and have been seeking—it will be my reading over Christmas. I look forward to more information on the subject from the 2020 group, the launch of which I attended on Tuesday. I hope that the minister will address the underrepresentation of civic organisations and the scientific community, both of which are essential to the success of the climate change programme.
As I said earlier, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 has been widely acknowledged, but we cannot rest on our laurels; we need to maintain the momentum. I will join my Scottish and UK colleagues in Copenhagen on Sunday. I hope that during the weekend we all influence those in power to make a major difference, and that negotiations deliver the best possible outcome.
Pauline McNeill, Alison McInnes, Rob Gibson, Shirley-Anne Somerville and Des McNulty have all spoken about the developing countries and the importance of speaking to them, learning from them and ensuring that they have the resources to tackle climate change. We can take on board the needs of those countries in many ways, and I am sure that the discussions will be equally useful in progressing our climate change programme. However, as with the 2009 act, Copenhagen will not be the end of the story. We have an act, but we need to consider how we move forward. Sarah Boyack, Patrick Harvie and Alex Johnstone all spoke about getting on with what we can do. We cannot sit back and say, "Hey, we have had the debate, we have been to Copenhagen and we've got a really good act." We have a lot to do.
Everyone in this chamber has a responsibility, not just in relation to the work that we do, but in relation to our families and our communities. No action is too small; we all have a big job to do. It is about what we do next and how we move on, and—as we have all said—we need to get on with it.
I begin by welcoming Cathy Peattie to her new portfolio and thanking her for the considered and interesting contribution that she made in her first speech on the subject. I extend my thanks to colleagues around the building for working with me to enable me to lodge a motion that reflects shared aspirations and belief. That was a good start.
As many have said, climate change is the biggest environmental threat that we face, and 2009 is crucial. We might not have only two weeks to save the world but, as Alison McInnes said, we have two weeks to start to change the world. We have had a mature and useful debate on an enormously complex issue that has generated a lot of good comment. We have disagreed on the detail—that is to be expected—but we are united in common purpose. That is a good foundation on which to build as we go to Copenhagen, not just to talk to people but also to listen to people, because we do not and could not have a monopoly on all the answers.
We laid the groundwork with our world-leading Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and we now have to press ahead with the practical solutions. We have an excellent story to tell about the greening of our energy supply. We launched our 10 energy pledges, and we are comfortably on track to meet our targets to meet 31 per cent of electricity demand from renewable sources by 2011 and 50 per cent by 2020. We are pursuing international partnerships for the Scottish European Green Energy Centre and the saltire prize, which is the largest Government innovation prize in history. We are making Scotland a centre for the key technology of carbon capture and storage, and we have been consulting on energy efficiency and low-carbon vehicles. Mention has been made of the climate challenge fund, under which a panel of people outside Government has ensured that 198 communities have benefited from awards to date.
The purpose of today's debate is to restate for the Copenhagen audience the all-party consensus on the need for strong action. I very much look forward to welcoming Patrick Harvie, Rob Gibson and Cathy Peattie to Copenhagen. I believe that they will be able to come to the reception that we are hosting on Monday evening. I certainly hope to see them there to meet many other people from other countries.
I cannot agree with everything that Patrick Harvie said in his contribution. It is not entirely inappropriate that the nickname for the US dollar is the greenback. We have to help the United States to understand how to live up to that appellation. Turning our back entirely on the free market is unlikely to leave us with the economic resources that will be necessary to deal with climate change. Patrick Harvie said that ever-increasing mobility must stop—I paraphrase his comment—but in the case that we have wholly greened our transport we can of course take a different way forward. Until we have done that, however, moderation has to be our watchword. We are, of course, counting the cost of infrastructure developments, even now.
I welcome the minister's comments on my contribution on mobility, but I note that he has still said nothing on my question on aviation, which I have put to him twice and to the First Minister once. Does the Scottish Government accept the recommendation by the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee on restrictions on aviation growth?
Aviation represents 4 per cent of our emissions and the figure for the United Kingdom is 6 per cent or so. We strongly support, in particular, the provision of alternative travel arrangements for people through high-speed rail. There is a degree of unanimity about that, even if there are some different views on the detail. Andrew Adonis's support for that way forward at Westminster is a welcome breath of fresh air.
I want to respond to a number of Sarah Boyack's comments. I agree that having Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama in place is probably helpful internationally as they represent two key nations that have to look at the issue differently from the way in which it has been considered in the past.
Copenhagen cannot simply address the needs and aspirations of the developed world but must find ways of supporting countries that are less able to do that for themselves. It has to ensure that we support their needs in a whole variety of ways.
Our procurement process, which I think Sarah Boyack referred to, increasingly provides access for small companies across Scotland and therefore economic opportunities in our communities. The sustainable travel budget has risen over the period of our Administration. Bus and train budgets are enormous and, of course, the council tax provisions that we put into the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill place a duty on councils. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is working hard on that, and Alex Johnstone made reference to the measure in his speech. The centre right is probably in a minority in the chamber, but it has a legitimate voice and contribution to make. I welcome Alex Johnstone to the debate. He can join our team any time. [Interruption.]
I am sorry to interrupt, minister, but could we please have less noise, particularly from members who are entering the chamber? A very important debate is going on.
The conference of the parties in Copenhagen will talk about targets but must, of course, also talk of delivery. Alison McInnes made that key point. There is also the need to raise public awareness. Until I came into office, I confess that my engagement on the issue was pretty modest. It was a serious wake-up call. I am awake; we must now waken the whole of Scotland.
Rob Gibson talked about the Salter ducks and highlighted the potential for tidal and wave energy in Scotland. Pauline McNeill said that she would have liked to have seen me in Glasgow on Saturday. I am afraid that Lachlan Murdoch McIntosh—my best man—and his wife Jan Reekie were celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary in a village hall in Crail that day. I simply had to be there. I believe that the champagne was from sustainable sources; members do not need to worry about that.
Pauline McNeill mentioned New Dehli. Following my visit to the city in the now-rather-distant past, I am glad to hear that things are getting better and that the three-wheeled tuk-tuks are now more environmentally friendly. I share her aspiration on high-speed rail.
Bill Wilson and other members spoke about Scotland being on the UK delegation. We have a good relationship with UK ministers. I have been to the past two environment council meetings as part of the UK delegation. The Bella Center in Copenhagen, where the COP15 meeting is taking place, is extremely crowded and so we will be ensconced round the corner in a very comfortable place, from where we can speak to people from across the world. [Interruption.]
I am sorry, minister, but I will have to try again. Could members please be quiet?
In speaking about flooding episodes, Nanette Milne highlighted an important and fundamental issue. Non-scientists do find it difficult to deal with the scientific debates on the issue, but it is not beyond any of us to understand the very real world impacts that we have seen in Cumbria and the north-east of Scotland. We can understand the issues.
I recently met Yvo de Boer, who is leading the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He is interested in what we are doing, as others around the world are. A senior official will be on the United Kingdom delegation and, if the bullying that he inflicts on me from time to time is anything to go by, I am sure that Scotland's voice will be heard by Ed Miliband. The BBC survey is hugely encouraging; it shows that two thirds of Scotland's people not only understand the issue but are up for it. As a result of our participation in Copenhagen, we will, of course share, copy and change.
In her references to India, Pauline McNeill talked of standing at the gates of the Taj Mahal, which reminded me of one of the most inspiring set of words from Shah Jahan—words that are appropriate in this context. In commissioning the design of the Taj Mahal, he had these words inscribed on the side of the building:
"Happy are those who dream dreams and are prepared to pay the price to make them come true".
We have a shared dream of a world that is unaffected by the problems of climate change. We share the responsibility to deliver to our successors a world that is better than the one that we inherited. Let us join together on that ambitious mission.