Climate Change
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2275, in the name of Ross Finnie, on climate change, and three amendments to the motion.
Climate change is often referred to as the most serious threat that faces our planet, and rightly so. We are already beginning to witness its impact throughout the world and the future environmental, social, economic and political consequences should not be underestimated.
If we look to the scientific evidence, it is clear that we cannot attribute any one severe weather event to climate change, but climate change is contributing to a pattern of more frequent severe and adverse weather conditions. As members are all too well aware, the effect of more severe weather conditions has been acutely felt at Iochdar on South Uist; sadly, we saw the funerals take place this morning of the five people who tragically lost their lives in the recent storms.
Climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions, but developed countries such as Scotland must be the first to reduce their emissions. It is therefore appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to debate Scotland's response to the problem this afternoon. The climate change agenda has accelerated in recent years and few scientists or political leaders now deny the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Concentrations of carbon dioxide—the main greenhouse gas—in the earth's atmosphere have risen by more than a third since the industrial revolution took place between 1750 and 1850, and the 10 warmest years on record all occurred since 1990, including each year since 1997.
The international community has put in place a programme for action through the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol. Following Russian ratification, that protocol will come into legal force in four weeks' time, on 16 February. The targets that are set out in the protocol represent an important first step in the global efforts to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. However, we should recognise that much more substantial cuts will be required in the future.
The United Kingdom's target under the Kyoto protocol is a 12.5 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 and the UK is comfortably on course to meet that target. We are committed to making an equitable contribution to that target and to working in partnership with the UK Government to move towards a domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2010. The data that were published last month in the regional greenhouse gas inventories show that we are moving in the right direction. Scottish greenhouse gas emissions are down by about 6 per cent and carbon dioxide emissions are down by more than 3 per cent since 1990.
The UK Government has pledged to go beyond the Kyoto protocol and put the UK on a path to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by some 60 per cent by 2050, with real progress to be made by 2020. Given the scale of the challenge that the world faces, I believe that it is right that the UK has made a commitment to make climate change a priority for the G8 and the UK's presidency of the European Union.
In the "Scottish Climate Change Programme" document that was published in November 2000, the Executive set out actions to be taken in devolved areas to mitigate, and to adapt to, climate change.
The minister made the important point that he wants Scotland to make an equitable contribution in the attainment of the United Kingdom targets. Does he believe that the Executive's performance to date has delivered that equitable contribution? If he thinks that Scotland needs to do more, will he state what further actions must be taken?
I think that we are making an equitable contribution, but I do not think that we are doing enough. That is why—as I had intended to say later in my remarks—we have recently embarked on a consultation on the climate change programme that we set out in 2000. I am quite clear that we will need an even more focused effort in the next few years. Also, as the member is well aware, the phrase "equitable contribution" is difficult to define. The consultation makes it clear that I have an open mind on the possible need for clearer targets but, as many members will be aware, there are technical difficulties associated with that. However, I remain entirely open on that issue. If clearer targets can be achieved, I would like to achieve them.
As I said, we are reviewing the programme. For example, we will consider the development of a much more expansive Scottish energy efficiency strategy.
Will the minister give way?
No. If I can make a little more progress, I will be happy to give way.
In keeping with the Executive's policy, the review of the climate change programme is a public consultation, which will remain open until 25 February. I encourage all parties in Scotland to participate in that. I intentionally kept the consultation paper open and non-prescriptive in its outlook to encourage a wide-ranging debate on how the Executive might reinforce its climate change strategy. It is too early to speculate on the outcome, but we will consider all views, including those that are expressed this afternoon.
Among the matters that I am considering is the question whether we should introduce a Scottish greenhouse gas emissions target. Such a target was not set previously, but the review provides for that possibility. I am keen that we improve our data to allow us to measure better Scotland's progress in tackling climate change. As part of the review, we are working to evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies.
The minister talked about the possibility of expanding energy efficiency measures. As I understand it, the Government of Scotland may have the responsibility for promoting energy efficiency, but the regulation of energy efficiency is reserved to the London Government. Is that not the case?
That depends on one's definition of energy efficiency. For example, the effective energy performance of buildings is clearly within our control because we set building control regulations. As Richard Lochhead will be aware, the Executive has raised the energy efficiency requirements in our building regulations such that they are now the highest standard in Europe. However, I believe that we can always improve. The Executive takes that aspect of energy efficiency very seriously.
The consultation paper provides an update on our progress against our first climate change programme. To meet the target of generating 40 per cent of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources, we have invested heavily in energy efficiency since the programme was published and we are developing an energy efficiency strategy for Scotland as a whole. To tackle congestion, we are improving the efficiency of our transport and we are committed to spending 70 per cent of the transport budget on public transport, which will be crucial if we are to make a serious contribution. To reduce waste, we are implementing the national waste plan and we have guaranteed £350 million to local authorities over the next three years to help them to implement our recycling and composting targets and to achieve our longer-term European Union targets for diverting biodegradable municipal waste from landfill, which will produce consequential reductions in methane emissions.
The Parliament's researchers estimate that the proportion of Scotland's transport spending that goes on public transport is nearer 50 per cent. Many items that are lumped into public transport, such as road works and road haulage funds, should not be there—
Mr Ruskell, you must ask a question.
What is the minister's view on that?
With all due respect to Mr Ruskell, who usually asks fairly crisp questions, that was not one of his better interventions but a vague amalgamation of information. The fact is that 70 per cent of our programme is aimed at delivering public transport. I believe that that is significant. Not only has the Executive increased the budget for transport, but it is transforming the proportion that we spend on public transport. Only if we provide adequate public transport is there any prospect that we will persuade people to stop using private transport. For that reason, the balance of spending is crucial.
I must make some progress.
We are expanding the area of woodland in Scotland, which acts as an important carbon sink and brings many economic and social benefits. We are undertaking research to help us to understand better the processes that contribute to emissions from Scotland's high organic soils, with a view to reducing those emissions. The first of two research studies into Scotland's organic soils was published earlier this month.
European legislation provides us with tools to reduce emissions. The European Union emissions trading scheme, which involves 25 EU member states, sets a cap on emissions. In Scotland, 117 installations, which account for almost 50 per cent of Scotland's carbon dioxide emissions, are covered by the scheme.
I recognise that we need to build on the action that we are already taking in order to deliver much greater emissions reductions in the future. We must tackle greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors, which in many cases will involve difficult decisions. We need to secure a profound change in the use of energy and other activities that release greenhouse gas emissions—in the home, in transport, in business and beyond—while ensuring that we secure sustained and sustainable development both in our communities and in our industries. The expansion of all the services to which I have referred will be crucial to delivery.
We must adapt organisations to enable them to respond to climate change. We are working with the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research. We are involved in a major UK programme of research into the impacts of climate change. We have introduced Scottish planning policy 7, the central purpose of which is to prevent development that would have a significant probability of being flooded. Those measures are crucial as we develop the current programme.
The Executive has recognised the importance of this issue. That is why we have launched a comprehensive consultation that invites people to participate in the development of a strategic environmental framework that we can progress. All our planning and processing will take place within the ambit of strategic environmental assessment, which will make a major contribution to the way in which we plan and implement public policy and promotion in Scotland.
I welcome the announcement of the Environment and Rural Development Committee's inquiry into climate change, which will, I hope, make a valuable contribution to Scotland's review of this important area of policy. I have never claimed and do not claim that the Government has all the answers or that there is no room for improvement. However, I believe that we are taking steps in the right direction to improve our policy. I hope that today's debate will make an important contribution to that process.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Executive's review of its Scottish Climate Change Programme; notes the corresponding review of the UK Climate Change Programme and the Scottish contribution to this; supports the Executive's commitment to consider options for strengthening its strategic approach to climate change, its commitment to deliver improved greenhouse gas emissions data and its commitment to assess the practicability of introducing Scottish climate change targets, and agrees that climate change, as part of the Executive's commitment to sustainable development, is integral to policy-making in Scotland.
The SNP welcomes this important debate and the consultation that the minister has launched. Many people think that climate change is a bigger threat to the planet than global terrorism. The minister was right to say that it is currently the biggest threat to the planet. In recent times, we have all witnessed the tragic consequences of the power of nature. That shows how carefully we must treat the planet.
Climate change modelling is not precise, but we can all agree that the earth is getting warmer, which has huge implications for the planet. If anything, scientists have underestimated the scale of climate change. They have only just begun to investigate the consequences of the global carbon cycle—the way in which the planet handles carbon, rather than simply the level of emissions that are produced by human activity. We have learned about the warming and drying of the Amazon basin, which means that one of the world's biggest and most important carbon sinks is being eroded. The trees in the Amazon basin are dying, which is releasing carbon into the atmosphere. At the same time, the permafrosts in North America, Asia and Europe are melting, which is also releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Because our oceans are getting warmer, they are unable to absorb and dissolve carbon as they have in past centuries. The most recent studies indicate that, even under business-as-usual conditions, we must revise the prediction for the increase in the planet's temperature by 2100 from 5(C to 8(C. We may all have underestimated the scale of this problem.
Given that the member identifies that the scale of the problem is greater than had perhaps previously been acknowledged, does he feel that the Scottish National Party conference last year made the right decision when it embraced the road-building programme? Should the SNP not review its policies?
The one thing that I can guarantee the member is that the SNP has much more realistic and ambitious plans on the issue than his party will ever have.
The medium-term impact in Scotland will not be as great as elsewhere in the world, but it will still be significant because our infrastructure could be wrecked by storm damage and flooding, as we have seen in recent times. Biodiversity will also be disturbed in Scotland. In Scotland, our sea temperatures have increased by 0.3(C over the past 100 years. That has huge implications for people who make their living from the sea.
We can agree that human activity plays a crucial role in warming the earth's atmosphere and that it is accelerating that trend. Human activity could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That is why it is so important that we take every measure possible to cut emissions from now on.
Unfortunately, despite the modest progress—which we welcome—that has been made since this Government was established in 1999, we are left in the shade by almost every other country in the European Union. If Scotland is treated as a separate country, only four other countries out of the 25 member states of the EU have a worse record than Scotland on carbon emissions.
I was intrigued when I saw Richard Lochhead's amendment to the motion. I wondered on what basis he had drawn that conclusion because, when I checked the latest figures from the European Environment Agency, I established that the number of tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted in Scotland per person was round about the European average. The figure was on the same level as that for Germany and was better than that for many countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland and Ireland.
The Parliament's research service gave me the figures. When I saw the figures, I was disappointed by them, so they were checked three times. I assure the minister that, unfortunately, they are accurate.
The key issue that faces the Parliament is how we mitigate and adapt to climate change. We all recognise that we have to change the way in which we live our lives and operate as a society. Scotland can make a difference. We must put our shoulder to the wheel internationally.
The first priority must be to change energy generation from fossil fuels to renewables. The energy sector in Scotland is responsible for a third of emissions. A fifth of that energy is used for electricity. The emissions from electricity went up by 18 per cent in Scotland at a time when such emissions went down by 21 per cent in the whole of the UK. Over the past 10 or 12 years, the energy sector's emissions have increased by 7 per cent in Scotland, yet Scotland is the country with the biggest renewable energy potential in the whole of Europe. We have 25 per cent of Europe's wind energy resources, 25 per cent of Europe's tidal resources and 10 per cent of Europe's wave resources. This Government is presiding over a situation in which the country with the biggest renewable potential in the whole of Europe has one of the worst trends in emissions of greenhouse gases.
This Government is as committed as anybody to increasing the renewables content of energy generation in the future and it has set an ambitious target of 40 per cent. However, does the member accept that, as the problem is not caused by domestic consumption in Scotland, the only way in which the kind of reduction that he suggests could have been achieved would have been by cutting off supplies to England?
The key factor is to reduce Scotland's emissions, which we can do if we realise Scotland's renewables potential.
The marine renewables sector is crying out for more support. There are calls for a test component platform, a combined wave and tidal tank and many other developments to get renewables projects in Scotland up and running. We need support from the Government to make those projects a reality. We must also stop London introducing charges for the grid that discriminate against Scottish renewables projects. We must develop a hydrogen strategy for Scotland so that our vehicles can have clean fuels and we must develop the biomass sector, the solar sector and so on. We must also sort out the mess that has been created by the lack of strategic guidelines for wind farms throughout Scotland. That causes huge problems.
In the recent debate on forestry, we heard that the planting of new forests in Scotland has declined over recent years. We must reverse that trend if we are going to tackle this issue. We must also attract more research and development to Scotland. We must ensure that action to mitigate climate change does not undermine economic growth in Scotland; it could provide a huge economic opportunity for Scotland if we can grasp our renewables potential and make progress on those other matters.
The Scottish Executive is responsible for 25 per cent of gross domestic product in Scotland. Public sector expenditure in the whole of Scotland is responsible for 50 per cent of GDP. The Government can take a lead through procurement policies and changing the behaviour of its organisations and departments. It should take a lead so that the rest of Scotland can follow.
We have to have a strategy to ensure that Scotland can adapt to climate change. Let us not forget that this country is already committed to 20 years of climate change. There ain't much that we can do about the next 20 years. We will feel the impact of the measures that we take now post-2025. It is our responsibility to ensure that we fulfil our obligations to future generations and protect our environment.
As the minister's consultation document says, many of the powers that will enable Scotland to have an effective and meaningful climate change policy are reserved to the London Parliament; we have to get those powers up here so we can make a real difference. I urge the Parliament to back the SNP amendment.
I move amendment S2M-2275.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"is disappointed to note that a comparison of our per capita greenhouse gas emissions with the United Kingdom and the other EU member states shows Scotland with the fourth highest level of emissions; urges the Executive to adopt ambitious targets in relation to its relevant devolved responsibilities and to take necessary steps to ensure Scotland is able to mitigate and adapt to inevitable climate change; recognises that greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by a range of measures, including the acceleration of renewables projects, energy efficiency, increased forestry cover, promoting research and development of clean technologies, and greater promotion of public transport, but recognises that, in order to effectively tackle climate change, Scotland requires the powers enjoyed by independent countries, including powers over fiscal, energy, aviation and foreign policy."
I welcome the fact that the Executive lodged the motion for debate. Our opposition to it is based on what it omits rather than what it includes.
As a Conservative, I might have been expected in the past to have stood up and begun a denial of what we are discussing today but, as we enter the Burns season, members will forgive me for quoting him and saying:
"Facts are chiels that winna ding".
The evidence is out there that global warming is a problem with which we must deal. I hope that the Environment and Rural Development Committee's inquiry will get to the bottom of exactly how significant human activity has been in causing global warming. There is no doubt whatever that over some considerable time the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been rising against trends from time immemorial and we can assume that human activity has played a significant part in that.
Caring for the environment is central to my Conservative principles and I acknowledge that it would be wrong to limit the ability of future generations to meet their own needs or to pass heavy environmental costs on to them. We want to encourage people to use less of the earth's resources and take more responsibility for the environmental impact of their actions. A healthy environment is essential in building communities, as we know, and we believe that the role of the Government must be to make it easier for people to use their natural inclinations to care for the environment and to work on their behalf.
However, we do not believe that the current obsession with targets and the action plans that the Executive is proposing is the most effective way of serving society's needs. Therefore, we are wary of the Executive's latest response to climate change—the idea of centrally imposed targets. Experience tells us that where that approach has been taken in the past, it has resulted in the Executive careering off spending taxpayers' money on a misguided publicity-driven policy that has brought people into conflict with environmental policies.
Does not the member accept that there is a role for Government regulation, albeit that individuals also have to take responsibility for cutting emissions? The landfill tax was a crucial way of reducing methane emissions. Does the member not accept that if there had not been targets and regulation in that regard, such emissions might not have been reduced?
Indeed, but the fact that targets are set is not instrumental in achieving them.
We have to consider the broader areas of policy and how we can contribute effectively to addressing the problem that the world faces today. If we are serious about tackling climate change, we must urge the Executive to take a more balanced approach in supporting other renewables technologies such as wave and tidal power and the energy from biomass and waste as well as nuclear technology, which will offer long-term opportunities for Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I am not taking any interventions; I have only six minutes.
Nuclear technology is exactly what the Conservatives are expected to raise in the chamber and we will do so today. The UK's leading engineer, Sir Alec Broers, the president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, has warned that renewable energy will not stop global warming or the expected blackouts. He has said that the UK Government's plans to generate 20 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020—it is 40 per cent in the case of the Scottish Executive—are unrealistic and that investment in nuclear power is therefore critical if shortages are to be avoided. He has also warned that the decision on nuclear power should not be based on emotion or exaggeration.
One of the Department of Trade and Industry's experts, Adrian Gault, director of strategy development at the energy strategy unit, recently told ministers that nuclear power will have to provide half of Britain's electricity if the UK is to have any hope of meeting its Kyoto targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I do not have enough time to take any further interventions.
Professor Ian Fells, chairman of the New and Renewable Energy Centre at Blyth, Northumberland, has called for an immediate resumption of the building of nuclear power stations. He has said that it is time to end the wishful thinking over the potential for renewable energy.
Furthermore—and in support of the call for us to think again about building new nuclear power stations—I ask the Executive and the minister to look at the likely trends of energy use in other parts of the world. We see developing industry in places such as India and China that will be built on the back of huge coal reserves, consequently contaminating the world's atmosphere further. Should we ever put pressure on those nations to reduce their CO2 emissions, their only alternative would be inferior and potentially dangerous nuclear technology.
Therefore, it is essential that, as we consider how we should meet our future energy needs, we consider not only the fact that nuclear energy is essential in our balanced energy policy but the fact that, if nuclear energy is to have a role, it is better served here in Scotland, where our mature technology is available for our benefit, rather than in other nations whose technologies are immature and unreliable.
I move amendment S2M-2275.2, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"notes the Scottish Executive's review of its Scottish Climate Change Programme and the corresponding review of the UK Climate Change Programme and, however, urges the Executive to take a more meaningful and balanced approach in supporting other renewable technologies like wave and tidal power and energy from biomass and waste, as well as nuclear technology, which offer long-term opportunities for Scotland at a lower cost to our landscape."
This is an historic debate, as it is the first time that climate change has been debated in the Scottish Parliament. I thank the Executive for bringing the debate to the chamber. The Scottish Parliament was dissolved just before the birth of the industrial revolution and it has re-emerged at the beginning of a new millennium in which the unintended legacy of that revolution is the biggest threat facing humanity.
Sustainable development is important, and we must achieve a balance between the economy, the environment and social justice. The fundamental definition of sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations. That is the backstop—the needs of future generations. We can talk about the balance between the environment and the economy as much as we like, but if what we do compromises the needs of future generations, we are headed in an unsustainable direction.
It is clear that the needs of future generations are being compromised and will be compromised in the future by climate change. The debate on that is over. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are unprecedented: they are higher than they have been over the past 250,000 years. Meanwhile, the global temperature has risen by almost 1(C over the past 200 years and that change has accelerated since the 1950s. The predictive models that have been developed not by the Green party but by cautious bodies such as the IPPC—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—are being validated by the record-breaking trends that we have seen of extreme weather in Scotland and throughout the world in recent years.
Does Mark Ruskell agree that it has taken a considerable amount of time for that change to become evident and that it will take an equal, if not longer, period of time—something like 40 years—for anything that we do now to have an effect?
Yes. That is why it is important that we get the right policies in place now, rather than thinking in terms of four-year political cycles.
Consensus now exists internationally between Governments and the scientific establishment. It is now not only the Green party that believes that climate change is real but the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and even the United States Pentagon. Additionally, 136 states, from Antigua to the Yemen, support the Kyoto protocols. We need global leadership at this time, which is convenient because the United Kingdom will have an opportunity for global leadership in the coming year. We have the presidency of the EU and the G8 is coming to Scotland to meet. We have a growing relationship with China, whose role in tackling climate change will be crucial during this century.
We have one of the best mixes of renewable resources in Europe. We have a special responsibility to get it right in Scotland and to set an example for the rest of the world. The key question is whether the equitable contribution that Scotland is supposedly making to the reduction of climate change emissions in the UK is really being made. It is clear that it is not.
No doubt the minister will say that Scotland is in a difficult situation because our baseline is different from that in England; we have fewer of the coal-fired power stations that England has been able to shut in recent years. To say that we have had no cards to play in the tackling of climate change in the past 15 years is disingenuous. There has been only a 5.5 per reduction in climate change emissions in Scotland in the past 15 years. That is a third of what has been achieved in England. Moreover, I do not think for one moment that that 5.5 per cent represents a ceiling on our ambitions because during that time, traffic congestion has risen, a Tory Government has built the M77 and air routes have expanded. All that was avoidable through Government policy.
Much more important than the debate that we have had in committee and in the chamber on where we start and the baseline is the discussion on where we want to end up. Tony Blair has set the target of reducing our emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. That is an ambitious target and it is supported by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the EU environment council, although this week we heard how, paradoxically, Blair's officials tried to undermine that target in Europe. It is the best target that we have at the moment. On best estimates, it is the one that will help to stabilise the rise in temperature at around 2(C higher that it was in pre-industrial times.
The problem is that we are not making progress to meet that target. In our report, we predict that by 2050, we will not even be halfway towards that target. It is clear that the Executive's example on climate change is one of how to take two steps forward and three steps back.
It is great that the Executive has established targets for renewable energy and electricity generation; that is two steps forward. It then failed to set energy efficiency targets and that is three steps back. It has reopened rail routes and it supports the principles of congestion charging in Edinburgh, and that is two steps forward, but it intends to build the M74 and the Aberdeen western peripheral bypass, promote cheap flights and undermine the case for the Scottish Eurostar, and actively consider a second Forth road bridge, and that is three steps back. Contradictory policies are coming from the Executive all the time.
We need the minister to set a climate change reduction target in Scotland for Scotland. He should set a target that is achievable by all means, but it should be meaningful and set us on a path towards meeting the 2050 target. We need the minister to climate-proof spending decisions throughout the Executive and find support for renewables such as wave and tidal power. We need him to set an energy efficiency target and to back the Green party's bill on traffic reduction, which will complement the Executive's transport bill.
We are facing a global crisis. I ask the minister to give us a Scottish climate change programme that we can hold up as an example to the rest of the world of how to solve the crisis for the benefit of our future generations.
I move amendment S2M-2275.3, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:
"is gravely concerned about the impacts of climate change on Scotland and the rest of the world and its implications for communities, the economy and the environment; is concerned that Scotland is failing to make an equitable contribution to the UK reduction of global greenhouse gas pollution; urges the Executive to set specific carbon reduction targets for Scotland with the aim of a minimum of 60% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; calls for a halt to Executive policies and projects that will undermine progress towards achieving this target; further calls on the Executive to set challenging energy efficiency targets in both the domestic and business sectors, recognising the economic opportunities that this affords; believes that there must be an accelerated introduction of all forms of sustainable renewable energy technology, including wave and tidal power, and considers that there is no place for expensive and unsustainable nuclear power in a sustainable Scotland."
Incredibly, there are people who, for various reasons, argue that climate change is not happening because there is no conclusive evidence. However, in 2001, even George W Bush said that climate change is an issue that must be addressed by the world. I wish that his Administration had taken more significant action, although I am sure that we agree with his statement. There is consensus across Europe, the UK and Scotland that priority must be given to combating climate change, protecting biodiversity, dealing with the environmental factors that are harming human health—especially in the urban environment—and finding more sustainable patterns of production and consumption.
In Scotland there is recognition that this global problem needs local solutions. Our First Minister, Jack McConnell, said:
"We must take responsibility for the world that we live in. If previous generations had known what we know now, then perhaps the decisions taken by them would have been different. We live with the consequences of those economic and political decisions, made with little thought for the long term, or for their impact on the environment."
I thank Mark Ruskell for pointing out that it is agreed that beneficial change will take time to become effective and evident. That is why it is important that we are not swayed from our policy direction of a sustainable, pan-UK and pan-EU approach to greenhouse gas reduction by the shrill cries of those who believe that more stringent action now will result in immediate beneficial change that will be measurable and evident. If there were an argument that was backed by scientific evidence for bringing in specific Scottish targets in certain areas, I would support it.
I will give an example from my constituency of the need for a sustained approach. Two paper mills, Tullis Russell Papermakers Ltd and Smith Anderson & Company Ltd, employ between them almost 1,000 people and support associated jobs in logistics and other sectors. Both companies play their part in helping to meet greenhouse gas emission targets and other environmental targets. Smith Anderson in particular is a UK leader in recycled paper goods and has the only UK facility for recycling Tetra Pak cartons. Both companies use considerable amounts of energy and water in their production processes. Tullis Russell has an old coal-fired power plant for its energy supply. Therefore, it is obvious that many of the climate change measures affect the two plants. I have been in close contact with them and with the Confederation of Paper Industries to ensure that compliance with climate change measures does not result in an economic situation whereby both plants would face closure. As I have said before, there is little point in having the best quality environment to pass on to future generations if we do not also pass on a sustainable economy.
In order to reduce carbon emissions, Tullis Russell, in partnership with Scottish Biofuel Ltd, has recently applied for permission to replace its coal-fired plant with a biomass plant that will use 100 per cent biomass. I hope that that will come from specific energy crops that are produced in Scotland with support from the Scottish Executive. The biomass plant will have sufficient capacity to supply electricity to the grid and thereby potentially to heat local homes. The plant will operate as a base-load plant, which is very important for a sustainable energy supply with a mix of sources.
Christine May mentioned base load, which is extremely important and which is related, of course, to the debate on nuclear power. Does she believe that we need to invest far more money in wave and tidal technology, which can generate the base load that we desperately require to complement generation of energy from wind?
I believe that we need sustained investment in a range of technologies. Those include wave and tidal technologies—in which we are investing—supported by onshore wind, which is the mature technology. However, let us not forget that the 60 per cent that will remain to be generated if we achieve the 40 per cent target must come from a variety of sources. I argue that that should include coal, nuclear and other sources.
We all have in our constituencies excellent examples like those to which Christine May referred. Does she agree, however, that the Government should show more leadership? The minister gave me a parliamentary written reply that said that only
"4.4 per cent of the energy used for heating the 14 largest Scottish Executive buildings was generated from renewable sources." —[Official Report, Written Answers, 14 January 2005; S2W-12711.]
Is not that rather pathetic?
I have touched only on one aspect of what the UK's and the Executive's policies are doing on climate change. I have not talked much about wind energy, which I support. I have not talked either about CO2 sequestration and storage, nor have I dealt with the huge range of support that is available to industry, homeowners and communities for projects to improve the environment. For example, there is the Fife environmental recording network, the Fife Environment Trust and the co-operative movement through the energy for all initiative, as well as work by local authorities. Fife Council, supported by the Executive, is saving something like £1 million a year through energy efficiency measures. The council is not the only public sector employer that is doing such work. I know that the Executive is encouraging its employment locations to take similar action.
It is a fact that we need a balanced economy, but we also need to ensure that the measures that we take to promote beneficial climate change are sustainable, long term and do not put an undue burden on the economy. We must also ensure that we keep our targets under constant review.
I support the Executive's motion.
It is not the first time in a parliamentary debate that we have agreement about the extent of a problem but not necessarily agreement about the route to its solution. However, what has been good about the debate so far is that nobody has questioned the fact that climate change is now a significant factor that must influence and affect our policy making here in the Scottish Parliament. A point of principle that I want to establish is that, where we have the power and ability to take action to remedy the difficulties that we face over climate change, we should take those actions and use everything in our power to do so.
I am somewhat bewildered by the minister's response to my intervention about the contribution that has been made by Scotland to wider UK targets. I cannot see how a 5 per cent reduction in emissions in Scotland is equitable when the rest of the United Kingdom has reduced emissions by 14.9 per cent. Ministers need to intensify their actions in that area to make good that deficit.
I want to make three specific points relating to energy efficiency, renewable energy and flood prevention, which has had a significant effect on my constituency. First, on energy efficiency, there is a compelling argument that, where we have the power to improve energy efficiency, particularly in building standards, the Government should intensify its efforts to improve building standards. I very much agree with the point that the minister made earlier. I understand that the Government is funding the central heating programme to improve the quality of heating systems in people's houses around the country to a specific standard, which is not equalled by the building standards that we expect for new and modern construction within Scotland. Someone can build a house to a standard that is lower than the standard that is expected of the central heating in older properties in Scotland. That, to me, is a logical inconsistency; I appeal to ministers to consider measures that will increase the effectiveness of building standards.
To follow the point that Christine May made about the debate in business, I believe that we should incentivise companies to take sensible measures in relation to their use of energy and resources. Far too often, there is a false debate between economic growth on the one hand and environmental protection and sustainability on the other. We all get involved in that debate, but there is a massive economic opportunity that can be realised if we take measures to incentivise companies.
Does Mr Swinney agree that the renewables obligation certificate mechanism has been one area of support for industry that has been admired and which can, I hope, be adapted to meet the needs of emerging technologies?
Yes, of course I agree. If we are to intensify our activities in incentivisation, we must take due account of that and of other opportunities into the bargain.
I want increased renewable energy in Scotland, but we must face the reality that the debate on renewable energy in Scotland has run into the sand because of the absence of a national strategy for the design of renewable energy in Scotland. A plea for a national strategy was made by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee under the distinguished convenership of my colleague, Alasdair Morgan; I hope that the Government responds to that point more effectively than it did in the parliamentary debate some months ago. Indeed, in its briefing for today's debate, Friends of the Earth Scotland—a prominent organisation that has been arguing passionately over many years for renewable energy—has made the same call for a national strategy, because it can see as clearly as I can that the debate has run into the sand of local objections and difficulties because of the lack of a strategy.
In my constituency, communities are under siege because of the number of congested applications, and Government policy does not assist them in the process of resolving that. Equally, the pricing strategy approach that is taken to offshore wind—an issue that was raised this week by Alex Salmond—is currently an important disincentive to achievement of renewables targets. We must intensify support for wave and tidal energy in order to give greater substance to attempts to achieve sustainably a larger renewable contribution. My criticism of the Government's renewables strategy is that it is a one-legged strategy that is dependent on onshore wind power, which is in difficulty in the current debate.
My final points relate to flooding. My constituency of North Tayside has been seriously affected by flooding. I assume that that is attributable to elements of climate change. If one talks—as I have done over many years—to long-standing members of our society, one hears that some parts of my constituency, particularly the areas that flooded in the past few weeks in the Strathtay area between Dunkeld and Ballinluig, were flood plains in the past.
I return to my original point, which is that in order to take steps to address such problems, it is essential that we use power wherever we have it. That is why I am appalled at the performance of the last Conservative administration in Perth and Kinross Council, which used not a moment of its time in office from 1999 to 2004 to put in place one stitch of flood prevention for my constituents in Perthshire. Those same Conservatives now parade around the county, preaching to people about flood prevention: they did absolutely nothing to protect the communities of Weem, Logierait, Dalguise, Dunkeld and Birnam. Those people should be ashamed of themselves; they did not use their power effectively.
Of course, there is now an SNP-Liberal coalition in Perth and Kinross Council. Thankfully, it has put those issues to the top of its political agenda and some sanity has been restored to our local authority. Thank goodness some power is at last being exercised, in collaboration with the Scottish Executive, to protect the communities that were so appallingly badly let down by the Conservatives—not for the first time—when they were in office.
I begin by saying that I hope to make a sane contribution to the debate. I also want to say that some of the ideas that I bring to Parliament are my own and not Conservative policy. Nonetheless, they are ideas that recognise that climate change is a reality rather than a debating issue. The statistics are unchallengeable and the consequences of climate change and global warming are already too tragically evident.
In Scotland, it appears that precipitation will probably increase, as will storm frequency. Elsewhere in the world, temperatures will rise and, although we in Scotland will have an excess of water, other areas will have none. The desert strip on either side of the equator will widen, which will mean that water will become scarcer there. Worldwide groundwater resources are being used up when water tables are falling; indeed, in many parts of the world, water tables are already at historic lows.
Other people have suggested that, in the long term, wars will be fought over secure water supplies. Scotland should look to the future in terms of harvesting and selling water. Of course, historically, it has not been economical to move huge quantities of water all over the world by sea routes. Although shipping costs are currently at an all-time high, the day might not be far off when capesize tankers could be used economically to carry water from Scotland to the middle east or elsewhere. In addition, as energy costs rise, desalination plants will become less economically viable, which will also increase the market for, and the price of, potable water. In looking to the future, I believe that a new market for water will emerge in 10 to 30 years. The past 10 years has seen exponential growth in sales of bottled drinking water, which is a commodity that could rapidly be scaled up into bulk deliveries.
We have a requirement to reduce greenhouse gases if possible—although I doubt that that will happen worldwide. Nonetheless, we must continue to develop renewable energy sources in Scotland. Currently, we are seeking to do that through development of wind farming, largely to the exclusion of development of other sources of energy.
In my view, we ought to consider more hydroelectric power. After all, it is an utterly reliable tried and tested energy source. After taking energy from the water, we could pipe it to the coast where it could be loaded on to ships for export.
Will the member give way?
If I may, I will finish the point. The proposal would benefit from the building of reservoirs relatively close to the coast in places where a deep-water port could also be easily accessed to keep pipe construction costs to a minimum. That said, the issue of location is relatively unimportant. What is important is that, by using water twice in this way—once for energy provision and once for supplying an emerging market—we would produce a double-win situation.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member give way?
Will Mr Scott—
But—
To whom are you giving way, Mr Scott? Is it to be Shiona Baird or Christine May?
I give way to Christine May.
Will Mr Scott name some of the unimportant locations that he proposes to flood?
That would be a matter for the market to decide. Sales of water would help to defray high reservoir construction costs.
Will the member give way?
No, I do not have time.
An utterly reliable source of renewable energy would be provided. Of course some land and valleys would be used to do that, but in my view a reservoir is more attractive than a wind farm. If we had more hydroelectric power, that would add to the balanced mix of renewables on which we will increasingly need to depend as, nationally, our dependency on wind farming increases.
It should certainly be possible for 18 per cent of Scottish electricity generation to come from renewables by 2010 without problems of intermittency developing, but if we are to meet the longer-term target that 40 per cent of electricity generation should come from renewables by 2020, the next 20 per cent cannot all come from wind power without intermittency. Therefore, strategic further investment in hydroelectric power should be considered to provide a balanced mix of renewables and to create the opportunity to sell the water after it has been used to produce energy.
I have not costed my proposals, but the entrepreneurial part of my character tells me that the concept is worth exploring and that, if it were viable, it would turn the problem of developing a reliable and dependable renewable energy supply into an opportunity.
The minister can make a short intervention.
Does Mr Scott accept that it is for the industry to develop such proposals and that a number of hydro-power proposals are being prepared?
I accept the minister's point and I welcome the proposals to which he refers. I am not suggesting for a moment that that should be a Government initiative.
My hydroelectric power proposals would create a modest number of jobs in rural areas. The hydro idea is worth investigating before the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and power-generating companies make final decisions on the major electricity transmission routes that will be used to harvest wind-turbine generated electricity, and it should be factored into route-design calculations.
We cannot put all our renewable energy hopes in wind power and, in fairness, we are not doing that. However, although the harvesting of wave and tidal power might be viable in the long term and hugely worthy of further investment, it is not yet viable. The production of energy from biomass and from photovoltaics are still in their infancy, too. In the long term, the burning of precious gas supplies will contribute to production of more greenhouse gases and to further global warming and climate change. In the long term, nuclear power might be the only truly environmentally friendly option.
Whatever measure we ultimately choose and decide on nationally to combat climate change, worldwide drought and electricity supply problems, we know that we must get our decision right first time. Decisions on climate change and energy supply have perhaps been deferred for long enough. I offer my idea to Parliament in an attempt to address both issues positively and sustainably.
I look forward to hearing which towns and villages in Ayrshire would be inundated under John Scott's plans.
I apologise for the fact that I will not be able to take interventions, because I have quite a lot to say.
As we have said repeatedly, Parliament was established to achieve Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. By the same token, as citizens of a global village, we must play our part in achieving global solutions to global problems. I welcome the fact that the minister made that point in his opening speech and I welcome the debate; I just wish that American state legislatures would give the same attention to their global responsibilities. The phrase, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" was coined back in 1952; perhaps the time has come for our US cousins to develop that theme. The phrase, "If the cooker's on fire, it's time to turn off the gas" might be apt.
If we wait until we get conclusive proof about global warming, it will be far too late for future generations to do anything about it. The case for urgent precautionary measures to protect the global environment is overwhelming. That has been endorsed by representatives of every party whose members have spoken in the debate.
It is largely thanks to the commitment of our UK Government that the Kyoto treaty has now been activated. I welcome the fact that our Scottish Executive is actively engaged in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. I strongly support the Executive's aim of generating 40 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020. That target is extremely ambitious and we will not get anywhere near achieving it if we just pay lip service to renewables and then support nimby campaigns against wind turbines. That point is all the more relevant after the events that took place in Perth yesterday. I am well aware that such matters can be controversial. Part of the Crystal Rig wind farm is in my constituency and I know that some people have strong feelings about enormous wind turbines in wilderness areas. I understand why. Serious objections must be considered fairly, but ultimately if we are serious about the matter we should have the courage of our convictions about climate change and we should back appropriate wind farm proposals.
I have a big constituency interest in electricity. The Cockenzie coal-fired power station and the Torness nuclear power station are in my constituency, as well as part of the wind farm that I mentioned. A third of Scotland's electricity comes from East Lothian and the industry employs 1,000 people in the county, so I bring local knowledge to the debate. Even if we achieve the target of 40 per cent of electricity generation from renewables—a big "if"—60 per cent of Scotland's power, plus that proportion of our electricity exports, will still have to come from conventional generators. However, more than half of our existing generating capacity will reach the end of its design life within the next decade. If we do not start to plan new base-load power stations now, we will face power shortages and blackouts in the not-too-distant future—the situation really is that serious. There are legitimate concerns about CO2 emissions from Cockenzie and Longannet power stations. With the best will in the world, it is difficult to control emissions from older coal-fired plant, especially in the case of Cockenzie, which is run as a standby generator. The modern clean coal technology to which Christine May referred could do far better, but we cannot escape the fact that burning of fossil fuels produces CO2. In addition, the depletion of scarce global stocks of oil, gas and coal to generate electricity might not be the best use of precious resources that will be needed by future generations.
There is a legitimate and important point about CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel fired generators, but extremist sections of the environmental lobby are opposed to nuclear power too, which is silly. The operation of nuclear power stations in the UK is avoiding the emission of 50 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year—that is equivalent to taking half Britain's cars off the roads. I accept that the big problem with nuclear power is the need to provide safe and secure permanent storage for radioactive waste. Come what may, we will have to construct a national repository for the waste that we have inherited from older plant. Britain should make a virtue of that necessity by planning a repository that can take the far smaller quantities of waste that will arise from a new generation of modern nuclear generators. Finland and Sweden are providing for permanent storage of nuclear waste; Britain can and will do so, too.
I had the good grace to acknowledge that my ideas were not those of the Conservative party. I am interested to know whether the member's pro-nuclear ideas are his own or those of the Labour party.
I am trying to keep party politics out of the debate, but the answer to the member's question is, "Wait and see." There is a serious debate, which we must all address seriously.
I will summarise. First, we need to plan for new generators to replace aging plant and to provide the more than 60 per cent of electricity that cannot possibly come from renewables. Secondly, we must seek to retain Scotland's share of the UK's electricity in order to sustain jobs in areas such as East Lothian. Thirdly, it would be irresponsible to add to CO2 emissions through increased use of fossil fuels in power stations, so the time has come to begin considering and planning new nuclear generators. We cannot afford to continue to indulge an irrational taboo about the nuclear industry; we must have an honest and informed debate about how we will generate electricity in the not-too-distant future.
Earlier this week, a number of colleagues from all but one of the parties in Parliament took part in a preliminary meeting about the establishment of a cross-party group on the civil nuclear industry. I sincerely hope that that group will help to promote informed and constructive discussion, although I have no doubt that some of its members will express views that are different from mine. Let us have a serious discussion about the subject.
I urge the Executive to acknowledge the case for considering all the options for generating electricity without causing global warming and climate change. As we know from what happened last week in South Uist, the issue could not be more urgent.
To echo the Executive motion, I welcome the revisiting of the Scottish climate change programme with the aim of developing and strengthening it. In particular, I welcome the commitment to develop improved data, because I believe firmly that good information underpins good decision making.
All members agree with the scientific community that climate change is happening. A small minority of scientists argue that the data are being misinterpreted, but, in general, the scientific community agrees that climate change is happening and that the cause is human activity, which has increased emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases, particularly since the industrial revolution. The main effort in response to climate change is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Scottish nationalists' amendment helpfully lists a number of measures that can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and I am glad to say that we are taking all of them.
The main source of greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland is energy generation, which creates about 32 per cent of the total emissions, a figure that has increased, in contrast to the reductions in other areas. That statistic shows clearly where our attention should be directed and I will focus mainly on that issue. A rough breakdown of Scotland's electricity generation shows that 55 per cent comes from nuclear, 30 per cent from coal and gas, 11 to 13 per cent from hydro and 2 to 3 per cent from other renewables and waste. At present, our maximum domestic demand is 60 per cent of the installed capacity. Scotland is a net exporter of electricity, which is one of the complications in calculating disaggregated statistics that would allow us to monitor Scotland-specific targets on emissions reduction. That is not to say that we should not compile such statistics, just that doing so is not as simple as it might appear.
Our five major power stations—Peterhead, Cockenzie, Hunterston, Longannet and Torness, which are fuelled by gas, coal and nuclear—will all reach the end of their planned lifetimes during the next five to 30 years and will have to be replaced within that timeframe and in accordance with the limits on carbon emissions that we have agreed to meet. Nuclear power undoubtedly meets the non-carbon-emitting criterion, but it has so many disadvantages associated with it that I cannot accept that it is the answer. Frankly, the wishful thinking is done by the nuclear engineers, who do not want to be deprived of their toys.
Hazardous waste is still the main drawback of nuclear power, but there are others. Intermittency and lack of security of supply are often cited as arguments against other methods of electricity generation, but nuclear power stations sometimes have to be shut down fast and without warning, which results in the loss of a substantial chunk of the base load in a oner—even nuclear power stations need substantial backup. Furthermore, in the world in which we live today, the threat of terrorist attack must be taken seriously, and a nuclear power station is a large target with a large potential for disruption and contamination if it is hit. On a somewhat different level of argument, the aspirations of the world's underdeveloped economies are a significant factor in the global carbon equation and we need to demonstrate that renewable technologies are viable and desirable.
Does the member accept that the nuclear industry in this country has an extremely good safety record and that there is a serious potential problem with the use of nuclear power in less-developed countries with less-developed technology? We must address the opportunities that nuclear power affords us before accidents like the one at Chernobyl happen in other parts of the world.
Alex Johnstone has just made my case for me.
I do not think that the member understands the case.
I understand it clearly. We have not solved the problem of hazardous waste, and other hazards arise from the use of less-developed technology and from less-responsible use of the technology. A risk analysis comes out against the use of nuclear power.
Apart from anything else, the potential crossovers between nuclear power generation and nuclear weaponry are, for me, a further strong disincentive to promoting that form of generation. I would like the Department of Trade and Industry to get its head out of the sand, accept that nuclear is not an option and redirect the level of resource that would be required to build new nuclear plants towards clean coal, carbon sequestration and more efficient hydro power.
Does not the member's plea to the DTI vindicate the SNP's argument that all energy policy should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament so that we can have a proper and comprehensive energy policy?
I invite Richard Lochhead to say after me, "I am a Scot, I am a Briton, I am a European and I am a member of the global community." We cannot have a little bit of the stratosphere above Scotland that is entirely under our control. He keeps telling us that fish swim across boundaries, and I can tell him that air moves around the world in currents.
I was interrupted in full flow.
You have one minute left.
The DTI has to pay serious attention to what needs to happen to allow our huge renewable resource to be developed. Predictable tide and wave generation can supply the base load, and the DTI must accept that most of the resource is in Scotland and most of the demand is in England. It must tell the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to act accordingly and to look to facilitate the bringing together of supply and demand. The grid should be upgraded and the trading arrangements sorted out, so that financial institutions and commercial companies have the confidence to invest in what I firmly believe to be the future. It appears that the oil and gas companies see the writing on the wall, and it is time that others did, too.
I will cover another couple of points quickly.
Very quickly.
In Scotland there are opportunities for communities to become either self-sufficient or less dependent on energy from the grid, and those opportunities should be explored and exploited. A lot could be done at our own hand to encourage such initiatives.
The solution to the energy gap is not wholly on the supply side. We are hugely wasteful of energy. A lot of the gap could be closed by reducing demand.
I gather that I have run out of time.
You are well over time, I am afraid.
In conclusion, the Scottish Executive is working to tackle and manage climate change. The suggestion that we are doing substantially less than England is a fallacy. We work with the UK Government; we are contributing our share. I commend the motion.
I am sorry, but we are short of time. I must ask members to stick to the time limits that they have been given.
At least we can cut to the chase and state that in this chamber we believe that climate change is happening. It is much better to describe it as "climate change", because although bits of the planet will warm up, "global warming" does not convey the full force of the changes that will take place. Across the globe we will have a much greater malaria problem. We still have not tackled the problem in sub-Saharan Africa and the prospect of it growing across the globe should worry us all.
John Scott made points about water shortages, particularly in the subtropics, which will have a huge impact on the ability of countries in the region to grow crops and feed themselves. Countries in the region already have unstable Governments and huge poverty problems. It is estimated that tens of millions of people will be affected by rises in sea levels and flooding. The issues are difficult.
Recently, I was dismayed to read advice given to Tony Blair by a respectable journalist in one of the respectable Sunday broadsheets that he should deal only with the problem of global poverty and not try to tackle climate change as well, because that would be too difficult. The complexity of climate change is a difficult issue to deal with. It will hit every bit of everybody's lives, regardless of where they live in the globe. That is why we need a coherent approach to climate change.
There will be lots of difficult issues and I will try to focus on them, rather than on the consensus, although the right starting point is the fact that we agree that climate change is happening. We in the rich, westernised countries are responsible for 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, yet we represent a small percentage of the world's population. We have a serious responsibility to tackle the situation.
We will not escape the problems ourselves. I ask members to look at the west coast and imagine a 40 per cent increase in rainfall during the winter. That is not a happy prospect. The fact is that that increase will probably come in extreme storms; it will not flow gently throughout the winter. Householders on the west coast will have huge problems, not just with flooding, but with insurance. There will be much bigger insurance bills and huge problems with household damage. The horrendous weather that we have seen in the past few weeks will become more normal, which is another huge problem.
This is not a criticism, because six minutes each is no time at all, but members have not said that we have to deal with climate change now as well as think about what we can do to stop it. The 40-year lead-in that people have spoken about is probably beginning to hit us now. If there is a big disagreement among scientists, it is about how fast the change will happen. None of us really knows the answer. We are not experts—we can only read the evidence. However, it appears that some scientists think that the process is happening faster. There are some much more short-term questions that should concentrate our minds. This is not just an issue for the next 30 years; we cannot put off considering it just because we have four-yearly elections. We will encounter some of the questions now, and some of the problems that we will have to deal with might be quite unpalatable. Shifting resources from priorities to which we are already committed to dealing with the impact of climate change is not something that any member will relish discussing.
It is not just the Parliament that needs to discuss climate change; it is also a big issue for local authorities to debate, as they are the bodies that currently deal with flood prevention schemes. I repeat that there are short-term issues and that we should not just think of climate change as a 40-year or long-term issue—we should not focus on the fact that the climate will be different in 2100, as change will take place a lot faster than that.
We have debated energy today, and I know that the Tories are holding a debate on the subject next week. Labour Party policy is still in favour of a moratorium on nuclear power until we sort out the issue of nuclear waste. John Home Robertson is right in so far as nuclear power is part of the discussion that needs to be held in relation to the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent, but it is not the easy, quick fix that some nuclear engineers describe. John Home Robertson acknowledged that to an extent, at least, although he was a bit unfair to call those of us who are not persuaded of his view extreme environmentalists. Some of us think that we are sensible to be a bit cautious, and a lot of Labour members would agree with me about that.
The short-term issue that we really need to focus on is energy efficiency. It is not sexy and it does not get people out of bed in the morning, but it has kept a lot of people in Scotland alive since we started our heating programme. If we link short-term energy issues into social justice, we begin to get win-win situations, which could make some of the harder decisions that we have to take in the Parliament a little bit easier.
The issue of building standards is a no brainer. We have already raised them and we need to keep raising them over time. It is easy to talk about doing so in the Parliament, but actually raising them is hard for the building industry. People in the industry know that their consumers like fitted kitchens, and if any of us went out and bought a house tomorrow, we would be attracted by the fitted kitchen, rather than by high energy-efficiency specifications.
I would like the minister to spend a couple of minutes of his winding-up speech on the issue of air transport. The fact that we are finally getting half-decent air links from Scotland has been a liberation for many people in Scotland and is hugely beneficial for Scotland's economy. However, there is a downside, which includes the fact that millions of people now drive to airports by car and the fact that we are possibly replacing rail travel with short-haul air travel, which simply does not make sense.
I will give members some information that I checked out on the web last night. If an individual wants to go to London from Edinburgh or Glasgow, the train will cost them at least £30 to £50 each way, with a journey of four and a half hours or five and a half hours, depending on whether they go from Edinburgh or Glasgow. However, they could go by plane for £13 to £30 each way, including tax. The equation is not a clever one: this is not about stopping people using their cars or getting on planes; it is about beginning to think through the implications of using our cars all the time and of choosing to take cheap flights even though the train probably offers the better journey. The economics of that choice are crazy.
We must keep up the push on the big investment in public transport. This is a good week to say that, because we know that big money is going into rail, but we must keep up efforts in that area in the long run. We will have to deal with some difficult issues in the Parliament and I hope that the inquiries that the Executive and the Environment and Rural Development Committee are undertaking will let us take them a bit further.
I will start by addressing John Scott's rather ingenious idea about shipping water elsewhere. However, he did not address the objections that there would be to the location of the reservoirs.
I think that there was a misunderstanding when I said during my speech that the location of the reservoirs was unimportant. Their location would be very important, but there are many valleys in Scotland that have absolutely nothing in them and which would be the better for having something in them.
As I was going to say, that exemplifies one of the major problems that we have with electricity generation. Every form of electricity generation provokes lots of objections. If a new power station is built somewhere, no matter what kind it is, there are objections. If a wind farm is built somewhere, there are objections. Why is there currently only one proposal to build a major hydroelectric scheme in Scotland? It is not because there are not plenty of valleys that could potentially accommodate hydro schemes, but because the people who build such schemes know that there would be lots of objections from naturalists and others, including people who live in the valleys concerned, who do not want them to be flooded. That is one of the major problems. The only reason why we have not had any objections to tidal or wave stations is that there are no proposals for any, but if proposals are made, objections will be received. That is a difficult issue that we politicians have to face.
I welcome the decision of the Environment and Rural Development Committee to hold an inquiry into climate change. John Swinney referred to the Enterprise and Culture Committee's inquiry into renewable energy, which, because of time pressures, concentrated largely on electricity generation. I welcome the fact that the Environment and Rural Development Committee's inquiry will be wider.
I notice that, in its briefing, RSPB Scotland said that there was no longer any rational doubt that climate change was happening. Those of us who are older feel that we have lived through some of that climate change. However, there is a major problem in that, while there is no debate about whether climate change exists, there is a major debate, in some parts of the scientific community, about the cycle over which that change is happening and the causes of the various cycles that we are going through. Clearly, any short-term cycle, which I believe there to be, is perhaps overlaid by a longer-term cycle about which it is difficult to get data that can be used for modelling. There is also a debate about the extent to which the current cycle is caused by man's activities and the extent to which it is caused by other factors, such as radiation from the sun. The problem is that those uncertainties can be exploited by the people to whom Christine May alluded, who seem to want to deny the existence of global warming for their own purposes.
I share the minister's view that the evidence strongly suggests that there is a problem and that it is being made worse by human activity. Even if that were not the case, I take the point that John Home Robertson made when he said that we would do well to act on that assumption. If, at some time in the future—perhaps long after we are on this planet—it is proved that we were wrong, we will have lost nothing by being wrong and taking the precautions of increasing the use of renewable energy and reducing the use of fossil fuels and energy as a whole. I raise the scepticism that exists over climate change because it is being exploited by those who wish to campaign against the only renewable technology that is currently commercially available, which is large-scale wind power.
I totally accept that we need to concentrate on other forms of renewable energy, such as wave and tidal power. In fact, that is what the Enterprise and Culture Committee recommended. However, while we are waiting for that technology to come through, we need to get the wind strategy right—or, rather, we need to get a strategy in the first place. The fact that there is no strategy allows nonsense to be peddled in order to influence and exploit reasonable people whose only major problem with wind farms is their detriment to the scenery. Those people have genuine concerns because, under the present system, they can see no end to the number of wind farms that are proposed in their area.
The minister needs to help those of us who want to campaign for wind farms. We need some assistance from him so that the people we are trying to convince about the virtues of that approach can see the parameters of and limits to what we are proposing. As John Swinney said earlier, at present all those people see is application after application and all they hear are the doom-mongers saying, "Imagine what Scotland will be like if all those applications are passed." We know that they will not all be passed but the people we are trying to convince do not. It would be of great help to us if the minister were to put in place a national strategy for wind farms now rather than next year or the year after.
I welcome this debate and the consultation. As Sarah Boyack says, there is a consensus in the chamber that the recent bad weather in Scotland has been caused by climate change, which is a reality. The recent weather has brought home to all of us the fact that we should be focusing on climate change and that it has the capacity to destroy property and, sadly, take lives. The recent bad weather has been devastating for Scottish communities and today's debate is timely. We must use this opportunity to make concrete decisions on how to tackle climate change.
We all accept that climate change is a reality. Globally, six of the 10 warmest years that have been recorded were in the 1990s, and 1998 was probably the hottest year of the past millennium. The first three months of 2002 were the warmest since records began in 1860. Temperatures in Scotland are expected to increase by between 1(C and 3(C by 2080, which will result in an increase in winter rain of between 10 and 35 per cent. Although Scotland is still rising after the previous ice age, sea levels are predicted to rise by up to 0.8m by 2100, and levels will rise by between 8cm and 30cm by 2050. That, combined with future storm surges, could put most of Scotland's coastline below the 5m contour and leave it more vulnerable to flooding. Approximately 170,000 residential properties in Scotland—or one in five—are at risk from flooding.
Wildlife and snowfall are also under threat. Species such as the Scottish primrose and the ptarmigan might disappear and snowfall in the western half of Scotland and the Highlands could decrease, which could have a devastating effect on the Scottish tourism industry and result in job losses.
What can be done about the problem? First, the Scottish Executive must set a climate change target for Scotland that is broken down into sectoral guidelines. Secondly, all major policies and projects should be CO2 proofed.
If all Executive policies were carbon proofed, would the member's party continue to support the expansion of air travel and oppose congestion charging?
I do not know where Patrick Harvie got the idea that we support the expansion of air travel. We have issues with that, to which I will come shortly. On congestion charging, there is a huge debate to be had; the issue for us is not the principle of congestion charging but the fact that it will hit the poorest people, who can least afford it. We need to look at the matter again. We do not oppose congestion charging in the sense that Patrick Harvie suggests, but we realise that, in Edinburgh, the policy will not favour people who earn the least and who have to travel to work. That is an issue that we can discuss at a later date. We are not being duplicitous in our approach.
Thirdly, there should be a major shift in transport resources towards public transport, cycling and walking, with an immediate cessation of unnecessary road-building projects such as the M74 extension. Fourthly, a national programme of tree planting should be initiated—I was pleased to hear the minister mention that. Fifthly, there should be an immediate cessation of building on flood plains and of drainage of wetlands.
Finally, the Scottish Executive must fund the renewables industry properly and not in a piecemeal way, as happens at present. The industry should receive funding that is comparable to that which was lavished on the nuclear industry and continues to be lavished on British Energy to this day. The renewables industry in Scotland should be publicly owned. We should not have huge wind farms set up throughout the country to the benefit of big building companies and private owners. We should consider where wind farms are to be placed and ensure that there is proper consultation with communities. Wind farms should be publicly funded to tackle climate change now for the future generations of Scotland.
I quote from a forthcoming report from WWF Scotland, which concludes:
"while the intentions of the Scottish Executive have been laudable, the outcomes suggest a lack of practical control or indeed any strategic overview of the actions in Scotland (and their economic and environmental cost) that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a greater or lesser degree."
The report also states:
"the Scottish Climate Change Programme was long on aspiration, but short on quantifiable targets."
I think that that sums up the current situation. I hope that the debate will move us forward.
We move to closing speeches, which should be of six minutes.
I have been quite encouraged by the consensus among members that climate change is a reality. That is a good starting point. Perhaps members who are still present could go one step further by agreeing with me that we should congratulate Tony Blair on saying in September 2004 that the time for action is now. It is good that we have consensus.
We need to take some major, difficult and uncomfortable decisions. As Sarah Boyack said, those will become more uncomfortable the longer that we leave them—I had intended to refer more of her comments, but I see that she, too, has left the chamber—but there are also huge opportunities to be grasped as we make efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.
John Home Robertson said that climate change is a serious issue on which we need an honest and informed debate, but he started off his speech by name calling. He has some serious questions to address about what he thinks a serious debate is. However, let me ask him and the Conservatives why anyone would opt for nuclear power when we have such huge resources all round Scotland. It simply does not make sense.
In his so-called green speech in September 2004, Michael Howard said that nuclear power is expensive. That was some understatement. Everything to do with nuclear power is quoted in billions of pounds that trip off the tongue rather too easily. The Government plans to accept financial liability for up to £5 billion of British Energy's nuclear liabilities. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd's liabilities are £48 billion. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's annual budget is £2 billion. Worst of all, Nirex will require £83 billion over the next 40 years not to dispose of but simply to manage our existing nuclear waste. Nirex believes that it could take anything from 25 to 40 years before a waste facility is in place.
What did Alex Johnstone mean when he said that we must not pass on heavy environmental costs to future generations? There is an unbelievable illogicality to his argument.
Does the member accept that the next generation of nuclear power stations will use technology that will have the capability of allowing us to achieve our aims over the next 60 years, with only a 30 per cent increase in the total amount of nuclear waste for which we need to find a home?
But how much will that cost? We have technologies to create power without such waste.
Will the member give way?
I must first proceed a bit further.
We need to imagine where the renewables industry would be if it had received just a small fraction of the billions of pounds of public money that have been wasted on nuclear power over the past half century.
I will give way to Jamie McGrigor.
Does the member accept that Denmark, which relies very heavily on wind energy, has the most expensive electricity prices in Europe? Certainly, its electricity is more expensive than ours.
With nuclear energy, the full cost comes later. We should stop considering only the present costs of renewable energy. If we compare the total costs of renewable energy with those of nuclear energy, we are into a completely different ball game.
Let me address security of supply, on which Nora Radcliffe made some important points. Despite John Home Robertson's unfortunate arguments, one or both reactors in five of our eight nuclear power stations had to be shut down in 2002. During that year, Torness was shut for several months, but I do not remember any blackouts resulting from that.
The performance and innovation unit, which was set up by the Cabinet, said in 2002:
"Future risks to our security of supply of both gas and electricity will be significantly reduced by implementing an energy-efficiency programme and a diverse renewable strategy which can reduce our dependence on gas beyond 2020."
Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute states:
"Each dollar invested in electric efficiency displaces nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide … If climate change is the problem, nuclear power isn't the solution."
I could provide endless quotations from people in Government circles who dispute the value of nuclear power.
The other issue that we have not really addressed is transport, on which we must make a really difficult decision. In the 21st century, the Executive's decision to proceed with the Aberdeen western peripheral road makes a nonsense of its climate change intentions. If ever there was an opportunity to create a modern transport system that would be the envy of Europe—especially in Aberdeen, which is the energy capital of Scotland and in which the intermediary technology institute for energy is starting work—this was it.
I end with two short sentences. Tony Blair said that we must act now. His adviser said:
"Action is affordable; inaction is not".
This has been an excellent debate, despite the fact that attendance has been fairly sparse. It has ranged from the minister's excellent opening speech, through Richard Lochhead's construction of the atmospheric border between Scotland and England and the nuclear debate, which generated a bit of heat, to excellent speeches by my colleague Nora Radcliffe and by Sarah Boyack, in particular.
I was tempted to say that, at first glance, Scotland is one of the few countries in the world that might benefit from climate change, because it will become a little warmer here. The downside is that we will not have Costa del Glasgow, because it is also becoming much wetter, as unfortunately we are all aware.
After the tsunami disaster, no one needs to be reminded of how devastating the power of extreme geological events can be. As many members have mentioned, in recent weeks there have also been fairly extreme floods in parts of Scotland, Carlisle and other places. Just as the tsunami disaster and the horrific images of death and destruction that accompanied it gave a powerful boost to the campaign for the improvement of aid and trade arrangements, in a slightly different context the same disaster has raised the profile of the potential harm that may be caused by global warming.
As other members have indicated, there is another relevant cloud on the horizon. That is brought to mind as we watch the celebrations for the reinauguration today of President George W Bush—Dubya. The single biggest issue for climate control is the failure of the United States to sign up to the Kyoto protocol or even to accept the principles that underlie it. I am bound to say that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. This is a serious issue that we must take into account. I hope that if the Prime Minister, who has made considerable effort on this front, has the influence that he claims to have with the President of the United States, he will expend some of the credit that he has earned over recent years to persuade the President to take effective action in this area. I do not have to say that I am not holding my breath.
In the United Kingdom, we are comfortably on course to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent by 2010. I pay tribute to the Scottish Executive and to my Liberal Democrat colleague Ross Finnie, in particular, for their work in accelerating action in Scotland. Because of Liberal Democrat commitments that we, along with our colleagues, have delivered through the partnership agreement, we have more renewable energy, more investment in recycling, tighter building regulations, more ambitious energy efficiency measures and better policies on flooding than exist in England.
The member refers to his party colleagues. Does he agree with the Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, who has described the impact that the UK Government has made on climate change as pitiful? Given that in Scotland we are meeting only a third of the targets that have been achieved in England and Wales, what does he think about the record of the Scottish Executive?
I agree that we have a long way to go. The minister was candid about that. On any view, this is undoubtedly a staging post on the way to what we seek. However, when the Executive came into power it was starting from a very low basis. We have made considerable progress over the period since then.
The point that I was going to make is that that progress means that momentum is gathering and it becomes possible to build on what has been done so far to stimulate a further drive forward. The issue for today is whether we can step up that momentum in response to what I think is growing public support for stronger measures.
I will concentrate on a couple of points. I welcome very much the drive and commitment that have led to the delivery of renewable energy through wind farms. Wind farms will rightly continue to be important, but there is a lot to be said for producing energy near to where it is consumed. I hope that the Executive will be able to give more focus to a step change in the use of solar power and the use of domestic or factory-level wind power. Technology is developing in that sector and Scotland could be at the forefront of what is an immature market. More encouragement and support for housing associations and councils to take action that would show a proper sense of corporate responsibility as well as benefit their bottom line would make a big difference to our renewable energy production. Such developments are not as dramatic as the large wind farms, but they are appropriate and eminently sustainable.
The other issue is the potentially useful mechanism of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. We should take the time and the opportunity to review the operation of HECA at its current halfway stage to strengthen the targets and to consider how to address the fact that most local authorities are failing to meet their targets under the act. I have raised the issue a number of times with the Executive and I have to say that it is one matter that could have more bureaucratic drive put behind it.
Sarah Boyack was entirely right to talk about how we deal with climate change now. Nevertheless, on flooding, I was pleased to hear—contrary to the comments made earlier by the Green party—Ross Finnie's commitment to preventing development on flood plains where there is a significant possibility of flooding. I have seen the result of the failure to do that in the east end of Glasgow—among other areas—where there were floods three years ago, so I hope that he sticks to that determination. The prevention of such development is a serious constraint that we ought to go along with.
We are making significant progress. As members have all said, this is a serious and important issue that we have to get right. We want there to be an acceleration of motion in this regard. I pay credit to, and look forward to further progress on, the actions being taken by the Scottish Executive in this context.
I will raise an issue that is particularly relevant in my region of the Highlands and Islands: flooding and the impact of climate change on the sea.
As an Argyll man I am used to heavy rain, so let me start by saying that we have to be careful that we do not jump to conclusions on climate change. It would be easy to say that the terrible storms of last week, the flooding across large areas and the many landslips in the spring and early summer that are caused by heavy rain are the results of climate change. However, where I live on Loch Awe the water has never reached the level that it did in 1957. In the same region, we had a decrease of 30 per cent in rainfall in 2003.
Nevertheless, one only has to have seen pictures from last week's storms, or from areas where flooding is a regular problem, to be concerned about the impact that our climate can have on our lives. In some parts of the Highlands and Islands the start of heavy rain nowadays raises fears of rivers and burns rising and the possibility of homes and businesses being ruined.
The 2004 report by the Association of British Insurers on the future impact of climate change on flood defences and requirements notes that claims arising from storm and flood damages in the United Kingdom doubled, to £6 billion in the period from 1998 to 2003 compared to the previous five years. The association believes that damage claims from river and coastal damage could increase from £1 billion a year now to £20 billion a year by 2080.
Last Friday, David McLetchie was in Moray to visit the Lhanbryde flood alleviation scheme, which is one of six schemes in Moray that are desperately needed to deal with flooding. The Lhanbryde scheme is close to completion and should be operational in April. However, it is the only scheme that has been started and Forres and Elgin are likely to have to endure the fear of flooding for some time to come. Although the other schemes are likely to happen, the issue of how Moray Council funds the schemes is on-going. The Scottish Executive has said that it will pay 80 per cent of the cost of the schemes, but that leaves Moray Council responsible for 20 per cent of £140 million, which is £28 million. Flood alleviation will be a problem for councils.
The member started by talking about areas where there seemed to be less water than there was decades ago and areas where there seemed to be more water than there was decades ago. I was expecting him to ask us to draw a conclusion from that and I wonder whether he will come to that.
The conclusion is that some of these things have happened before. Only yesterday, I visited Lochgair in Argyll to see the site of the new sewerage system proposed by Scottish Water. Despite vocal opposition from local campaigners, Scottish Water ignored residents' concerns that the loch floods above the level of the planned new septic tank about every 10 years. Lochgair residents knew that the scheme was not suitable and told Scottish Water so, but they were ignored. Thankfully, yesterday Argyll and Bute Council rejected Scottish Water's application. Scottish Water's blasé attitude to the consequences of its actions could have led to local homes being flooded with sewage. That has happened in Campbeltown, Inverary and other areas in the west and is the kind of local disaster that could be avoided if action such as that which John Swinney suggested were taken.
During a recent Campbeltown flood, businesses had to shut and pump out water. Flats and a nursing home were cut off and people's livelihoods and homes were put at risk because a suitable scheme to deal with excess water was not in place.
Will the member give way?
No.
Many local people have worked hard to supplement the natural beauty of their areas and improve tourism, but they cannot do that if they are not supported by Scottish Water. The hard work that has been done is being put at risk because the Executive and Scottish Water are letting problems drag on while the debate continues about who pays for what, and when. The Executive said that the problem was Scottish Water's. It passed the buck, which I think is a shocking indictment of the Lib-Lab Executive's attitude to rural communities; it simply washes its hands of the issue and hopes it will go away, but it will not.
On our coastal defences, the tragic deaths in the Western Isles last week highlight why we should be concerned about the effects that climate change might be having on our seas. The inter-governmental panel on climate change predicts that the global mean sea level might increase by 79cm between 1990 and 2100, which could have devastating consequences for low-lying coastal areas, and that all coastal areas might experience severe weather conditions such as those of last week.
What we need from the Executive is adequate flood and storm damage prevention. We need more research into why flooding is becoming an increasing problem. We need to know whether it is the result of climate change or simply the poor planning of new housing developments—building on flood plains—and deforestation. We need to consider the root causes of flooding to determine the best way of dealing with it in future. We need the Executive to do more to allow Scotland to adapt to the new climate that we are experiencing. The Executive needs to ensure that sufficient warning procedures are in place for any future storms and that sufficient funding is available for flood prevention as well as for encouraging innovative solutions. We need action from the Executive, because, like the sewage in Campbeltown, the issue is not going to go away.
It is interesting that many of the landslips that took place in Scotland in the spring and early summer of last year were in areas from where the sheep stock had been removed. Perhaps stock removal should not be undertaken without considering landslips. The landslips might not have happened had the stock been left where it was.
We all acknowledge that climate change is perhaps the most overarching subject that we are ever going to debate. Tackling it will require revolutionary action in comparison with what we have done in the past. When we scrutinise what the Government is proposing, we do so in a spirit of co-operation to try to ensure that Scotland sets the example that the world needs us to set. We are one of the main polluters of the world because of our early development and our industrialised society. We can set an example to help other countries. We will have to allow countries such as China and India to develop. The west, and more developed nations, will have to take much bigger hits in relation to how they operate. The central part of all this is that we must have a much more strategic approach that is strengthened from the centre. The minister proposed that, but I have yet to hear whether the sustainable development directorate and how climate change is dealt with within the Scottish Government at present is central to that. The Environment and Rural Development Committee has questioned the minister about that and we look forward to definitive answers.
Assessing practicable targets is a major part of what the minister has talked about. We have talked a lot about energy, but about two thirds of emissions are accounted for by transport and by heating for houses. I will concentrate on housing. I refer members to a report in The Herald today about Cathy Jamieson's visit to the Western Isles to see for herself the tragic devastation in the community in South Uist. The report tells us:
"The need for building regulations and transport systems to be adapted to the threat of storms and floods is being assessed by ministers prior to a major conference on the implications of climate change."
The Executive must recognise that the SNP has argued in the Parliament for far better standards of housing from an early stage and that many of the suggested measures were rejected. We do not have the Scandinavian level of housing standard, which we require, and we do not have the kind of housing that can resist the greater storms that will result from climate change. It will take a huge amount of work to achieve that.
Members of various parties have suggested that the cost of inaction would be enormous. The cost of action will also be considerable; however, unless we take that action and commit a lot more of our funds to tackling climate change, we will get behind. We will get to a stage at which Scotland is not setting an example to the world, but trailing. If, as the SNP amendment suggests, we get the mitigation measures right, we can sell that technology to other countries and use our advances to help other people. I would like the debate to move in that direction, and the SNP suggests that we need more powers to do that.
The Executive says that we need to improve the quality of data, which brings us back to the question of powers. On emissions data, the Executive's consultation document says:
"The determination of a Scottish target is also complicated by the fact that the Executive only has full leverage over areas devolved to it, with UK Government policy decisions having a significant influence over Scottish emissions."
The SNP stands for our having full powers to deal with all policy areas and we ask the Scottish Parliament to come with us in that direction.
Given the fact that we are a net exporter of energy, does Rob Gibson expect us to take powers to limit the amount of energy that is to be used by those who are resident in England?
We must try to be sensible about this and recognise the fact that, if we set an example, the Government in London will set targets for England. We must set targets for Scotland that set an example, and we must ensure that the way in which we produce energy can be sustained.
We should also ask people whether, if the need for energy continues to increase at the present rate, they and their families will be able to find ways in which to take responsibility for it in their homes. That is the major area that we have not discussed. There can be central regulation, but that is difficult. To reduce climate change we must get people on board. We must get businesses educating their workforces in saving energy and auditing how they use energy, so that they can reduce their consumption. We must get families to make decisions about what energy they use in the home and how that is approached.
Frankly, until we get that kind of lead from the Government, we will see the disintegration of society. We need a reduction in emissions not of 60 per cent, which is what Tony Blair has called for, but of 90 per cent in order that, in 20 years' time, we do not find that climate change has got out of hand, as some have predicted. We have 20 years in which to work and the SNP amendment suggests that we need a much stronger lead from the Government.
As Robert Brown said, I have enjoyed what has been a good-quality debate. Ross Finnie opened by referring to climate change as one of the most serious threats facing our planet. It has been encouraging that, although one or two contributions wandered from the central theme, not a single one has taken issue with that point of view. There are issues to discuss and it is right that they should be the subject of vigorous debate.
Rob Gibson's speech reflected the views that were expressed by his party during the debate. The powers of the Parliament are not central to what we are discussing, which is what we need to do to tackle harmful emissions.
Does the minister not appreciate that, if everyone in the chamber feels that the environment is a good enough issue to devolve to Scotland because it is best handled here, and if there is consensus that energy policy is central to our environment policy, then the same rationale should be applied and energy policy should be decided in this Parliament?
If there is a consensus in this chamber it is that what matters is that emissions from Scotland are cut. It matters much less which Government is responsible for cutting them. As members of different parties have acknowledged, Britain is leading the way in global efforts to tackle climate change and show what action can be taken. Scotland is playing its part within that wider context.
This will be an important year for tackling climate change in Scotland, as well as across the UK and beyond. The Parliament is debating the subject and the Environment and Rural Development Committee is conducting an inquiry. Following our current consultation, the Scottish Executive and the UK Government will publish revised climate change programmes later this year. In the summer, as Mark Ruskell said, the G8 summit will come to Scotland and we are working hard with our partners on a programme of events to show why the decision to come here was a good one, and why it is an opportunity that Scotland should not miss to influence policy positively in the world community.
Before the minister leaves the subject of parliamentary inquiries, does he have anything further to say about the Government's response to the Enterprise and Culture Committee's inquiry—which has now been echoed by submissions from Friends of the Earth—about the importance of the Executive strengthening the national strategy for renewable energy? Will the strategy be made more diverse?
I certainly do have something to say about that and I will come to it in a few moments.
To look at the wider picture, we recognise the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and of monitoring how that is done, and we acknowledge our responsibility to ensure that those commitments are fulfilled. That is why we have issued our consultation and are seeking views from all parties as to how those targets will best be met.
The subject of powers was raised in the debate and it is important to say that, in the context of working with the UK Government and the EU, we already have more ambitious targets and are leading the way in some of the initiatives to promote action on climate change. One of those initiatives is renewables. We have a more ambitious renewables target thanks to our existing platform of hydroelectricity and superb natural resources. We also have better standards in building regulation. The thermal insulation standards put in place since devolution have put us among the leaders in Europe. I welcome the clear and unambiguous support that we have heard from many in the chamber, including John Home Robertson and Alasdair Morgan, for progressing with wind as a key part of our renewable energy future and for diversifying the renewable energy that is offered.
Of course, we considered very carefully the views of the Enterprise and Culture Committee. We have a strategy for promoting renewable energy. It is set out very clearly in planning policy and guidelines. Whether they relate to wind or hydro or anything else, it is clear that renewable energy developments should be accommodated where the technology can operate efficiently and the impacts can be properly addressed.
Does the minister agree that the strategy is first-come, first-served and that that is its strength?
No. Decisions about the location of wind farms, and any other type of renewable development, are best taken at a local level, if possible, because local authorities and local communities are impacted on most and understand their areas best. Certainly, the last thing that we want to do, which would be incompatible with what we actually do, is to close down whole areas of the country to particular types of renewable development, while saying that we recognise that we need to expand the sector—as we clearly do.
There are other important points to be made when it comes to the question whether Scottish targets should simply reflect those set for the UK as a whole. It is important to recognise the differences between the emissions patterns in Scotland and those elsewhere. For example, the figures that were produced, I understand, by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre for Richard Lochhead are very different from those published by the European Environment Agency, which compare levels of carbon emissions per person across the European Union. Such differences in the figures highlight the difficulty of trying to compare like with like.
I thank the minister for giving way.
On the critical target of reducing emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, does he acknowledge that, on our current rate of progress in Scotland, we will miss the target by a half?
No, I do not accept that. It is completely wrong to try to extrapolate levels of saving that have been achieved over the past 12 years to those of the coming 46 years. The point is that we and the UK Government are consulting in order to identify what needs to be done to increase the effectiveness of the measures to tackle emissions. When we do that, we will see that the targets are achievable and that we must commit to them and find the best way to carry them forward.
A number of other issues were raised during the debate that challenged particular aspects of policy and asked how they related to the wider picture. Richard Lochhead questioned emissions from electricity generation. It is true that they are up by 10 per cent, but it is also true—and relevant—that something of the order of 17 per cent of Scotland's electricity generation is exported furth of Scotland. Because it is generated here it counts against our emissions targets. It is important, in comparing the figures and in deciding what targets we should set, to recognise such features and differences.
We are also promoting a range of renewable sources besides wind and hydro, which are the two current and significant contributing renewable resources. It is worth reminding members of the work that is being done by the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland and of the investments that are being made by the DTI, as well as by us, in order to support the development of, for example, marine energy and biomass.
On the suggestions that seeking 40 per cent of our energy supply from renewable sources is either too modest or unrealistic, I draw it to the attention of the parties who made those suggestions that the 40 per cent figure was reached on the basis of a wide-ranging consultation. The industry, and others who understand the opportunities and the limits, were very clear that although 40 per cent was ambitious, it was within the range of what could be achieved. It is on that basis that we have taken that figure forward.
It is also important to distinguish between motor vehicles and the roads on which they travel. I do not accept the view that because motor vehicles are an important contributor to carbon emissions we should simply freeze the road network and the transport infrastructure that we have today and that that would answer the problems. In fact, more efficient use of our roads, as well as of our other transport systems, is a critical part of tackling climate change. As for aviation, its impact on the environment cannot be dealt with by Scotland alone, but only on an international basis. We therefore support the UK Government's efforts to carry forward that issue during its presidency of the EU. We think that that is the right way to go. Like Sarah Boyack, we believe that energy efficiency is also critical to the efforts that we shall make.
I am grateful to members for the views that we have heard. I believe that they will contribute to the debate, and they will certainly be noted in our consultation.