Carbon Trust
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-5207, in the name of Nora Radcliffe, on the Carbon Trust. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the recent successful parliamentary reception held by the Carbon Trust; values the role the trust plays in Scotland in helping organisations to reduce carbon emissions, develop low-carbon technologies and respond to climate change; notes the positive views about the Carbon Trust in Scotland expressed by representatives of RHI Refractories in Clydebank and Ocean Power Delivery, two of the many Scottish companies that have received support from the Carbon Trust; notes that Aberdeen City Council pioneered the Local Authority Carbon Management Programme which Aberdeenshire Council is also using; notes with interest that organisations that take steps to reduce carbon emissions not only help the environment but can also benefit financially from more efficient use of energy, and believes that everyone concerned with reducing carbon emissions and improving business efficiency should be encouraged to spread the good word about what the Carbon Trust can do to help organisations, both large and small, across all sectors in Scotland to ensure that our nation's carbon footprint on the world is as small as possible.
I thank members for their support of the motion and the Carbon Trust for the excellent briefing that it circulated to members before the debate. Last but not least, I give special thanks to colleagues who have stayed half an hour later than usual after a busy parliamentary week to speak in the debate.
The scientific community agrees that climate change is happening, that it is happening because of man's activities and that it is probably still possible to avert potential catastrophe by modifying our activities. The urgency of the message that we must modify our activities has been reinforced this week by the report that polar ice is not refreezing after the summer melt; by the fact that, closer to home, people had to flee their homes yesterday because of flooding; and by the 14 flood alerts that were in operation throughout Scotland this morning. That follows the warnings in the Stern report that the cost of doing nothing will be far greater than the cost of taking action now and that the longer we leave it, the more costly it will be.
When that message prompts the business community to ask, "What can we do?" the Carbon Trust comes into its own. The Carbon Trust is an independent company that was established by the Government. It helps the United Kingdom to meet its climate change obligations by helping businesses to understand the importance of lowering their carbon emissions and by offering practical advice on how to do that. Businesses are responsible for about half of all the UK's carbon emissions, so it is important that they get the message, advice and help.
The Carbon Trust has developed a comprehensive range of carbon management activities for large organisations that wish to manage and reduce their carbon emissions while growing profitably. Two large paper mills in the north-east are benefiting from that. Aberdeen City Council pioneered, and Aberdeenshire Council is using, the local authority carbon management programme, which has been adapted for the public sector and provides councils with technical and change management support and guidance to help them to realise carbon emission savings.
The Carbon Trust has a carbon management product that is tailored to the needs of the higher education sector, and the trust's national health service carbon management programme is designed specifically for NHS trusts. The programme provides staff with support in and guidance on integrating good carbon management into their organisation's infrastructure and day-to-day operations at all levels. I am delighted that my local health board, NHS Grampian, is working with the Carbon Trust in the NHS carbon management programme. It is the only NHS Scotland board that is involved in the programme, and it is one of only 10 that are taking part in the UK. The programme runs until the end of March 2007, and goes beyond energy savings and awareness. It examines issues such as procurement, planning, travel and transportation, business strategies and capital programmes. NHS Grampian could significantly reduce, in a sustainable way, its carbon output and energy-related costs. By the end of March 2007, it will have developed a strategic implementation plan for carbon reduction targets and cost reductions over the short, medium and long term.
What is interesting and attractive about the Carbon Trust's approach is that modifying our activities to combat climate change does not require a hair shirt. Businesses and organisations continue to function, to produce and to provide services, but they do so with an awareness of the carbon cost, as well as the monetary cost, of their activity. By sensible planning and the elimination of waste, they save not only carbon emissions but money.
Buildings are responsible for approximately 40 per cent of the UK's carbon emissions, with non-residential buildings being responsible for approximately half of that. Members will not be surprised that the Carbon Trust has a free building design advice guide, which contains a detailed overview of all that people need to know about procuring good, energy-efficient buildings. The trust will help people to mitigate the climate change impacts from buildings by making the most of low-carbon design and technologies and ensuring that buildings are economically carbon responsible from their concept design through to their final occupation. The Carbon Trust has supported to the tune of £250,000 the development of an innovative new building membrane technology at the University of Aberdeen.
At about 1.5 per cent per annum of UK building stock, new build represents only a small fraction of the opportunities that are available to reduce carbon emissions from buildings. Although many older buildings have poor energy performance, buildings typically undergo major refurbishment every 20 to 30 years, which offers opportunities to reduce carbon emissions. There are online tools to help people working in offices, industrial buildings, sports centres, civil estates and hospitality premises to compare their energy use with that of similar organisations. The Carbon Trust operates from the large scale of carbon management programmes to the small scale of free starter packs, containing energy-saving fact sheets, energy-saving tips relevant to businesses, posters and stickers to motivate staff to take simple energy-saving measures, and details of the free products and services that the Carbon Trust offers to help people to make further savings.
People can phone the trust on 0800 085 2005 for free advice on any aspect of energy saving. Its experts will answer simple requests for information or detailed technical questions about particular technologies. A huge range of information can be found on its website, including everything from lists of suppliers of energy-efficient equipment to comparative studies of different technologies to the criteria for receiving financial and other help to start new companies. One such company is Clear Process, which is a spin-out company from the University of Aberdeen that was supported through its birth pangs by the Carbon Trust. Strategic and business development consultancy, advice on corporate finance, mentoring for management teams, energy-related market research and guidance on technical support are all available where there is carbon-saving potential.
The Carbon Trust has the financial capacity to co-invest to develop low-carbon technologies, to fund or part fund large-scale demonstration projects and to conduct research into and analysis of different technologies and models. Its great strengths are its independence, the objectivity of the research that it conducts or commissions and the reports that it produces.
I hope that this debate will help to spread the word about what the Carbon Trust can and will do to help organisations and businesses of every shape and size to rise to the challenge that we face and that we must meet of mitigating climate change by saving carbon.
Each of the four members who wish to speak will have four minutes.
I might not use all of my four minutes.
I congratulate Nora Radcliffe on securing this timely debate, as I am sure colleagues will do. There was a huge turnout at the Carbon Trust meeting in the Parliament. One of the things that struck me most at that meeting was the practical nature of the projects that were presented. The presentations that were made by companies were critical. They talked about the benefits to their businesses, their increasing competitiveness, the lowering of costs and their pride in what they had done in conjunction with the Carbon Trust. That is a good way to proceed. Businesses should feel that they are part of the agenda. The Stern report and the climate change work that has been discussed in the Parliament aim to get businesses to feel that reducing carbon emissions is their agenda. An agenda will not be imposed on them. Opportunities are presented to them by their taking on board the low-carbon agenda and working with groups such as the Carbon Trust to deliver it.
I am proud of the work that the higher education institutions in Edinburgh have done to reduce their carbon emissions. The University of Edinburgh has looked at combined heat and power systems as part of its energy supply refurbishment programme. Last week, Napier University won an award at the green energy awards for its imaginative and radical use of photovoltaic installations, and Queen Margaret University College has put up very energy-efficient buildings in the east of Edinburgh. Some big public sector organisations have therefore signed up to the Carbon Trust's work.
Nora Radcliffe made a crucial point about the NHS. She was delighted to praise her local NHS board, but it would be good if NHS boards throughout Scotland joined in the programme. The NHS runs a huge estate. It represents one of the biggest parts of the public sector, and its use of carbon in buildings and in getting patients and staff to and from buildings makes a huge impact. We must push the NHS further up the agenda and help it to play its part.
Recently, I went to a presentation by Lothian NHS Board. It has to pump millions of extra pounds into its budget to deal with fuel price increases, which is crazy. That money should go on front-line services. Lothian NHS Board is doing an excellent job in bringing down waiting lists, but money is being wasted. The issue is energy that is not CO2 friendly. There is a real job to be done in thinking about the public sector, and particularly in thinking about the NHS. I hope that Allan Wilson and the Minister for Health and Community Care will speak to each other and think about how they can play a more proactive role and use the Carbon Trust's experience.
Finally, larger businesses are doing hugely important work, but I want to focus on smaller businesses. In that context, I declare an interest in the work that I have been doing on my proposed energy efficiency and micro-generation (Scotland) bill. Very small businesses do not think that they have enough time or staff to go to the Carbon Trust or the business environment partnership, which is an issue, but it would be a worthwhile investment for them if they did so. We should think more about incentives that can be provided to them. The Scottish community household renewables initiative has done a superb job for householders. I would like business taxation on businesses that retrofit to be reduced, for example, and small businesses, which should be part of the agenda, to be targeted. Such businesses must be encouraged and given practical incentives. I hope that the minister will consider my suggestion, and I would be delighted if he commented positively on it. If he does not do so, I would be happy to meet him to discuss the proposal further.
I congratulate Nora Radcliffe on securing the debate. We cannot talk enough about tackling climate change, and tonight's debate is another example of the recent trend for such debates in the chamber. We all know from the weather that has occurred over the past few days, which has affected communities in your own constituency, Presiding Officer, and elsewhere in Scotland, about the here-and-now impact that climate change is having.
It is imperative that we reduce Scotland's carbon footprint. As individuals, we have to reduce our carbon footprints. Households have to reduce their carbon footprints, and the public sector and business community must do so too. The Carbon Trust effectively deals with the public sector and the business community, so it plays an important role in that regard. We must get the case across to the business community and the public sector in Scotland that it is in their economic interests, as well as the environment's interests, to reduce their carbon footprints.
As Sarah Boyack said, doing that will reduce energy bills, which is a big issue on the balance sheet for the private sector. There are also economic opportunities for new business start-ups, and I was delighted to learn that the Carbon Trust is involved in many exciting initiatives in that area. Scotland can take a lead in reducing not only its own carbon footprint but the world's carbon footprint, by developing energy efficiency techniques and technologies and exporting them to the rest of the world.
I will raise two or three issues that other members might not raise. I have met representatives of the Carbon Trust in the past couple of weeks, although I was unable to attend the event in Parliament due to other engagements. I learnt that the trust has nine employees in Scotland, out of 140 across the United Kingdom. Given the urgency of the situation, I have to ask whether nine people working on behalf of the trust in Scotland is enough of a resource. I know that the trust has received a grant of £5.7 million from the Scottish Executive and that it has other income streams as well, but again, given the scale of the challenge that faces Scotland, we must, as a society and as a Parliament, examine the scale of the resources that are being devoted to that subject.
The climate change levy provides much of the income—perhaps half of it—that the Carbon Trust acquires. Is the minister convinced that we are getting back our fair share of the climate change levy raised in Scotland? I do not know what the figures are, as I have been unable to find them out. I assume that the question is of importance to the minister and that he will look into it if he does not have the figures to hand. Perhaps we get more than our fair share, given Scotland's opportunity to make a contribution, but we must find out the level of climate change levy that is raised in Scotland, and how much is being spent in Scotland to tackle climate change. That is what it is all about.
I am concerned about duplication. The excellent initiatives from the Carbon Trust support business incubators and other measures at the research and development stage, but other organisations, such as ITI Energy in Aberdeen, run similar projects. Enterprise agencies and companies are also involved in such initiatives. Is that work joined up, or is work being duplicated? Given that so many agencies are involved, do people know where to go to get proper advice and support? We need to look at that.
It is sad that the Government in Scotland has not yet published its energy efficiency strategy, which we have been promised time and again. If the strategy is a priority for the Government of Scotland, it should have been published long ago. We should not be waiting until just a few months before the elections and eight years into the Scottish Parliament. The issue is of the utmost importance. We were promised that the strategy would be published this December, but we are still waiting for it; I hope that the minister will give us some news on that. I hope, too, that ministers are not simply paying lip service to the issue, but are making it a priority.
It is important that we have a simple message and a simple one-stop-shop approach with which to get that message across both to the public and to the business community and public sector. I do not believe that that is happening just now. Far too many agencies are involved—they include the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust and various other charities, independent organisations and Government initiatives—and they all promote the same message. We must bring them all together and have a single energy efficiency agency for Scotland. Let us have one-stop shops in Scotland's cities and bigger towns, perhaps with energy advice centres that can service the business community and the public. We must streamline our efforts, so that the public can identify with this important issue and find it easy to get support and information.
I hope that the minister will give us good news, because we have been waiting for the Government to make energy efficiency a priority.
Like Richard Lochhead, I was unable to get to the reception that is mentioned in the motion. I am trying to remember where I was that night. Perhaps there was something else on—or at least I do not think that I was at the reception, but perhaps it was just a better reception than I care to remember.
I, too, congratulate Nora Radcliffe on securing tonight's debate and on bringing before us the issue of the Carbon Trust, the work that it is doing and the successes that it has had.
As we all know, climate change started off as a fringe issue in the Parliament but, over the now nearly eight years of the Parliament's existence, more and more people have gradually become aware of the problems surrounding the issue, the causes of climate change and the effects that it will have on Scotland. As I have said on previous occasions, the fact that we have had a greater number of Green party members during the second session has resulted in their priorities becoming the priorities of the Parliament and, suddenly, of all parties. Although we may not agree on everything, I think that we agree on that.
An important point about how the Carbon Trust operates is that, as Sarah Boyack pointed out, it is worth while for big businesses to develop schemes and methods of reducing CO2 emissions. If an organisation has a multimillion-pound energy budget, it does not need to make many efficiency savings to make a big difference to its profits. As a consequence, big companies have quickly seen the sense of becoming more energy efficient and more CO2 conscious.
The problem lies at the other end of the market, where very small companies might see the potential benefits of energy efficiency but are unable to find either the time or inclination to move down that road. For that reason, all parties have plans—this is certainly true of the Conservative party—to make that an issue in the next Scottish Parliament elections. Our party has plans, which I know are shared by other parties, to extend the efforts to encourage domestic energy efficiency and microrenewables into the small business arena so that small businesses are given equal levels of support.
Many comparisons can be drawn between the activities of the Carbon Trust and those of many other organisations, but it strikes me that, in certain respects, the trust's activities are similar to those of our enterprise companies. However, whereas our enterprise companies need to pick winners that will develop their contributions, the Carbon Trust is required to spread its effectiveness across a range of companies and public sector organisations in order to try to produce results everywhere.
Richard Lochhead raised an issue about the number of people that the Carbon Trust employs in Scotland. I do not believe that we should judge the trust's success on the number of its employees. If the trust can do the job with nine people, that is all the better as more money will then be available to spend on the investments that the trust believes are important and which are its reason for existing. However, if the trust needs more employees, we should consider that request. If the trust's activities need to be stepped up, it is certainly evident from the briefing paper that we get good value for money from what we currently provide.
I worry about Richard Lochhead's proposal that we should consider how to bring together the Carbon Trust and similar organisations into bigger organisations that would, it is perceived, do the job more efficiently. I am not inclined to agree with that, as I do not necessarily believe that big is beautiful. One man's duplication is another man's competition. I believe that competition can be successful in certain areas, including this one. Therefore, I am keen to have smaller organisations, working together where possible, that can bring about the results that we know can be produced by the Carbon Trust and the other organisations that operate in similar or parallel fields. Let us allow those with talent to specialise and let us see the results that they produce in the longer term.
I, too, thank Nora Radcliffe for lodging the motion for debate.
As Richard Lochhead said, climate change is an important subject that cannot be debated too often. Equally, we must keep repeating David King's pronouncement that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. As yet, there is still little appreciation of the impact that climate change will have if we do not take action now.
The Carbon Trust does a great deal of work in highlighting the opportunities that moving to low-carbon technology can bring to all businesses. Energy efficiency and better resource management are essential for businesses to avoid the waste that costs them dear. The idea is a no-brainer, but far too many businesses still accept such levels of waste without any real understanding of the savings that often could be made with very little effort. The Scottish Executive estimates that businesses and consumers in Scotland lose at least £1.3 billion in wasted energy every year.
The work of the Carbon Trust makes not only sound environmental sense, but sound economic sense. The Carbon Trust and other groups such as the business environment networks need support and deserve thanks for the work that they are doing. However, much remains to be done.
The Stern report made a valuable contribution in acknowledging the economic impact of climate change. In effect, the report brought the issue right into the enterprise arena. This is not an environmental issue parked on the sidelines. If ignored now, climate change will have a devastating effect on every aspect of our lives. It will have a disproportionate effect on the vulnerable in Scotland and around the world. That is happening already.
It is appropriate that it was in Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, that the local authority carbon management programme was piloted. That enabled Aberdeen City Council to establish the vital baseline from which improvements can be made. Such leadership is to be praised, although the targets are somewhat modest. We have to remember that, if we are to prevent runaway climate change, we must consider a reduction of 90 per cent in CO2 emissions by 2050. The borough of Woking has already reduced its emissions for the whole of the borough by more than 17 per cent. Because the public sector plays such a large part in the Scottish economy, substantial reductions in the sector are very welcome. Praise must also go to Aberdeenshire Council for adopting the programme. The challenge will be for all other public bodies to do likewise.
However, all progress will be quickly undone if councils fail to address all sectors when considering how to reduce CO2 emissions—especially in the new build of commercial and domestic properties, and, of course, in transport. Councils' planning departments can have a major and positive role in implementing the low-carbon approach.
I refer members to two crucial statements in the Stern report—that business as usual is not an option, and that doing nothing will cost far more in the long term. When will we start to take climate change seriously across all sectors? The decision by councillors to approve the expansion of Aberdeen airport undermines all Aberdeen City Council's good efforts and sends completely the wrong message to the people of the north-east. We need reductions in emissions in all sectors; we do not need actions that will deliberately increase emissions.
A recent study by the Carbon Trust, called "I Count", puts the annual carbon footprint of the average Briton at 11 tonnes of CO2, which is way in excess of what the planet can sustain. The report acknowledges the importance of individual actions in all aspects of life, but it also acknowledges that it is Government action that will produce the big savings—particularly in aviation and power station emissions. We need leadership and moral responsibility.
Many organisations such as the Carbon Trust are taking their responsibilities seriously. However, until we place a carbon cap on all sectors, we cannot ensure that our carbon footprint is small enough to prevent runaway climate chaos.
I, too, commend Nora Radcliffe on securing this debate; I also commend the endurance of all members who have stayed on to participate.
We welcome the debate. The Carbon Trust plays a valuable role in helping public sector and business sector organisations to reduce their emissions; in supporting the development of low-carbon technologies; and in helping organisations to respond to climate change. All those issues have been mentioned by the members present, and the Executive supports all those objectives whole-heartedly.
I am not saying—as Richard Lochhead implied or inferred—that individual weather events are necessarily the consequence of climate change; but I agree with Shiona Baird that the Stern report, which we have all seen recently, confirms to us all the seriousness of the challenge and of the threat to our economy. The Stern report made a compelling case for global action across international boundaries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Executive is committed to taking action. In global terms, Scotland's emissions are very low, but as a developed country we have a responsibility to act. I would argue that we are leading by example. Through "Changing our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programme", we have put in place ambitious carbon savings targets and a robust framework to support their achievement.
I was interested in the juxtaposition of the arguments from right to left—as I look at the Presiding Officer, rather than in any political sense. The Executive considers that the Carbon Trust's costs are high, and we plan to discuss that with the trust.
I agree with the duplication argument to an extent, but I tend to Alex Johnstone's theory along the lines of "Let a thousand flowers bloom", which is more of a Maoist theory than a Conservative one, in so far as each organisation has a role to play. I am not convinced of the merits of absorbing different organisations into single larger ones, even if we had the power so to do with regard to the Carbon Trust or the Energy Saving Trust.
My reason for believing that we should have a single energy efficiency agency in Scotland is that it is imperative that the man or woman in the street is conscious of the effort to promote energy efficiency in Scotland. My experience at the moment is that if I speak to the man or woman in the street, or indeed to any local businesses, few are aware of any of the existing initiatives to promote energy efficiency in Scotland. Having one agency would heighten the profile of the issue as well as achieve economies of scale. At present, each existing agency is sourced from a different area in terms of the way in which it is organically grown.
I understand the argument for rationalisation in the sector, although I am not sure that I would agree with it, even if, as I said, we had the powers to deal with it. Mr Lochhead does the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust a disservice. As the recent Carbon Trust reception in the Parliament clearly showed, a number of businesses have benefited from the trust's experience and expertise. As the trust's briefing demonstrates, it makes a valuable contribution across the board to informing and enlightening businesses, particularly on how they can secure the benefit for their bottom line. I agree with Sarah Boyack in that respect. A green jobs strategy is designed primarily to focus in on that economic benefit and the employment that can flow from it. A number of good examples of the Carbon Trust's work in that context were given at the reception.
Improving energy efficiency is one of the easiest and most cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions and business costs. A key focus of our developing strategy will be the potential for improvements in the business sector. The Executive already funds the provision of a wide range of practical advice—whether through the enterprise networks or directly—on energy audits and interest-free loans. We have a dedicated business adviser network to help our smaller businesses take action and we fund the Carbon Trust to help deliver some of those objectives.
I agree with those who argue that, on the demand side of energy generation as opposed to the supply side, the potential of energy efficiency to contribute to a low-carbon economy has always been underestimated. I also agree with Shiona Baird that the public sector lead in that area is vital. The Executive's central energy efficiency fund is a good example of what can be achieved in Scotland. It could be argued that there are too many funds and too many outlets for businesses and others to access, but that is a good example of where specific, targeted initiatives can make a difference. A recent example is at Queen Margaret University College, which was given about £500,000 to build a biomass boiler.
We want all public bodies, including those in the NHS, to follow the example of Aberdeen City Council, which was referred to by Nora Radcliffe. There is great merit in that approach.
It would be remiss of me not to mention renewables. We want to realise the opportunities for economic growth that they present and to benefit environmentally from the clean energy sources that they provide. Of course, we have ambitious targets in that regard and there are economic prizes to be gleaned from achieving them.
Will the minister update members on the timescale for the energy efficiency strategy? We are still waiting for it.
I hope to see it in the new year. The good news is that the delay is the result of energy efficiency and microgeneration being mainstreamed across all departments, as others have mentioned. That has made the process of the strategy's production more complex, but I assure Richard Lochhead that that is for all the right reasons.
The Executive believes that sustainability is the key. Employing strategies to make energy savings, meeting a growing proportion of energy demand from renewable sources, encouraging a behavioural change among energy consumers and reducing our wasteful use of energy resources are not jobs for Government alone. The Carbon Trust makes an important contribution to those objectives and I join all the other members who have stayed on for the debate in commending it for its activities in that regard.
Meeting closed at 18:06.