Plenary, 21 Sep 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Official Report 391KB pdf

---

Climate Change

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3293, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on behalf of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, on the committee's fifth report in 2005, which is on climate change.

First, it will not be possible to do justice to a wide-ranging report and an incredibly complex topic in seven minutes. However, I thank the committee clerks and the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre for their invaluable help in assembling a powerful range of witnesses and experts, who gave our inquiry an excellent start. The Environment and Rural Development Committee also thanks the organisations and members of the public who contributed generously to our discussions.

The committee started the inquiry with the result of our sustainable development research, which we commissioned some time ago. We questioned whether the Executive was taking an integrated approach to sustainable development across its range of functions. We also looked at the Parliament in that context. We considered climate change to be such an important and urgent topic that we wanted to test the Executive's commitment to sustainable development and assess how its climate change review process stood up across the range of Executive departments.

In my seven minutes, I want to talk about the context of our report and our key conclusions, and about where we think we should go next. The context is that climate change is happening now. We have time to tackle its impacts before they become irreversible, but we must shift away from our current levels of carbon consumption and emissions, which cause climate change. As the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution put it:

"If we go for business as usual … we are destined for something unimaginable."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, 26 January 2005; c 1545.]

Earlier this year, the G8 summit focused on aid, trade and debt in developing countries, but climate change is hovering in the background for all those countries and it has the capacity to make life even worse for millions of their citizens, particularly those who live in low-lying coastal areas, who will be extremely affected by rising sea levels. Climate change has an impact on flooding, even in our own communities. There is also the potential for climate change to link disastrously with the food chain as the climate heats up over the next few decades.

We call on other countries to do more, but we must be prepared to do more ourselves and to raise our game. The committee believes that that is a huge task, which will require radical change. The United Kingdom signed up to the Kyoto agreement and Tony Blair has now signed up the UK Government to a 60 per cent carbon reduction by 2050. As the RCEP said, business as usual is not enough because it will not get us to our targets.

After taking evidence, the committee was unanimous in the view that climate change is happening. The evidence is there for all to see across the world, including Scotland. The last time that we discussed climate change in the chamber, the Western Isles tragedy had just occurred and the dreadful impact of the storms there was at the forefront of our minds. Since then, other catastrophes have happened around the world. We believe unanimously that we must act now. We know that extreme storm conditions will be more frequent and we know of the regional weather differences in Scotland, to which we must adapt.

The committee was unanimous in its view that we must think about how we act to slow down climate change and try to stop it. We were similarly unanimous about the need to prepare now for the impacts of global climate change, because they are happening now.

The committee considered the Scottish Executive's climate change programme. We felt that it did not go far enough or fast enough and we were concerned that the minister's review later in the year must provide a route map—not only to set out the Scottish Executive's leadership, which we regard as crucial, but to provide information for Government agencies, for local government, for the national health service, for every business in Scotland, and for all of us as individuals.

We all need to know how to respond to climate change. That is why, if I can advertise the prop that I have with me, the committee has produced a report of its key recommendations. I will not be able to go through them all in my seven minutes, but I hope that my colleagues will pick up on the key issues. The report will go to every member of the Parliament and copies will be available for people who want to provoke a debate in their communities.

We examined the key sectors that are still adding to climate change emissions. We considered energy; agriculture, land use and forestry; transport; and business. Those are the key sectors that we have to turn away from business as usual. We are concerned that not enough is being done on energy efficiency—and that is the easiest place to start. We want to see more of the Scottish energy efficiency strategy; we want the Executive to give it higher prominence and we want members throughout the chamber to take it on board. We welcome the renewables targets that the Executive has set and the huge expansion that is in train. However, we want the Executive to develop a range of other renewables technologies as well, beyond wind and wave.

We want biomass and biofuels to be considered, and we want mass-scale micro-renewables to be considered. I am delighted that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has today announced an expansion of the funding for the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative. In my constituency, there is a scheme that would not have been possible before that initiative, and there had to be lobbying to get the Solar Twin technology included.

There is huge untapped potential. I have spent the summer talking to people about how we can go beyond the pilots and get projects into the mainstream. One of the key recommendations of our report is that renewables are not to be seen as just something innovative. We want there to be projects throughout the country. I know that there is an appetite in our committee for more radical proposals and I look forward to future debates, particularly on such issues.

We want the Scottish Executive to work with the UK Government on an energy strategy for Scotland that tackles climate change. That is a crucial conclusion in our report and we feel that it has to be acted on.

When we considered agriculture, forestry and land use, the committee was surprised by how high up the list that sector was when it came to increasing emissions. None of us expected that; we all expected transport to be number 2. However, there has been a huge expansion of emissions and there are distinctive Scottish issues that we have to tackle. The committee was therefore disappointed that the new land management contracts have been given such a low profile and such low consideration. Climate change issues have not been reflected, but we think that they have to be integrated into all our policies on land use.

The committee accepts that there has been a huge expansion in public transport. However, even today a newspaper headline shows that aviation emissions are the fastest growing source of emissions. Also, we are still not dealing with the increase in road transport. We need interim targets. We know that, up to 2021, road traffic vehicle miles are set to soar by 27 per cent, but what are we going to do about it? The committee does not think that a strategy is in place to reduce those emissions. We were told by the then Minister for Transport that road user charging had, in effect, been ruled out for a decade. We do not think that that is good enough and we want more urgent action.

We want the Scottish Executive to set targets across every sector so that we can begin to look at where we are going. We noted the First Minister's summer announcement that the Scottish Executive would set sectoral targets for each area of Scottish life. We want that announcement to be built on because, in future, it will concentrate minds. It will let us explore what Scotland's equitable contribution to UK commitments should be. That is meant to be at the heart of the climate change strategy. We need information and we need to generate both energy and the resources to tackle the climate change challenge.

The committee chose its words very carefully. Membership of the Environment and Rural Development Committee covers the range of political parties in the chamber, and getting agreement among those members is no easy task. I hope that the fact that we achieved unanimity on such a lengthy and complex report sends a message to the Executive.

The Executive has the support of the committee—and, I hope, the support of the Parliament—to be more radical when it comes to the review of the climate change programme. We hope that the Executive will consider our recommendations. We accept that an awful lot is happening in the Executive and we welcome a huge amount of it. However, we do not believe that it is all being done because of climate change. Some of the things that the Executive is doing are sensible and are good environmental policies, but we must ensure that there is action across every Scottish Executive department. We want the Executive to take the lead by moving away from business as usual and considering what Scottish companies can do to tackle climate change. That is crucial. If we can only target green energy and think about how to green our economy, we will be in a win-win situation. Our economy must use significantly less carbon and we must consider how our businesses can respond to that.

On climate change, there is no single fix or simple solution. We know that the Executive has many difficult decisions to take. In preparing its report, the committee wanted to say to the Executive that it needs to be more radical and to act more urgently, because climate change is already upon us. Some members have already had experience of the devastating and tragic impact of stormier weather. All of us can expect more of that throughout Scotland. On the east, winters will be drier and, in the west, there will be a lot of rain, which unfortunately will not be spread throughout the year. That is what our country faces. In other parts of the world, the challenge will be immense.

Let us do our bit—let us agree as a Parliament that there is much more that we can do. It is crucial that we do not forget about climate change after today's debate, but come back to it. Our committee has already decided that it wants to explore more of such issues in future. When we scrutinise Executive legislation and conduct our inquiries, we will ensure that consideration of climate change is key. I hope that the Executive will do the same and that the minister will be able to respond positively and to flag up more radical action for the future.

I move,

Report on Inquiry into Climate Change (SP Paper 342).

I am pleased to participate in an important debate. I acknowledge how much I and all members of the Parliament welcome the excellent report on climate change that the Environment and Rural Development Committee has produced. Just as the convener found it difficult to cover all her points in seven minutes, I will have difficulty in fitting in my response.

I am grateful for all the information that the report contains. The production of the report is timely because, as Sarah Boyack made clear, we are in the midst of a serious and radical review of our climate change strategy. The publication of this well-informed and well-constructed report could not be more welcome. The small summary booklet, too, is excellent and the committee is to be commended for producing a splendid publication that is readable and stops the reader from getting too bogged down. Parliamentary committees and the Executive could learn from that.

The report points out that it is vital that we respond to the situation that we face. We will not argue, as some people in other countries would seek to do, that there is any doubt about climate change. There is no doubt about it. We must respond by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking steps to prepare for the inevitable impacts of climate change.

The Executive is undertaking a review of its programme. We believe that we have some starting blocks. We have had targets on renewable energy and this morning we issued news on the SCHRI. In the past 10 days, we have announced differences in the way in which we will apply renewables obligation certificates in relation to wind and wave power.

My intervention is about the review of the Executive's strategy. I welcome the announcements that the minister made this morning about the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative, but is he satisfied that the Government has a truly joined-up strategy on biomass, especially in relation to public procurement projects? The part that biomass schemes can play in the public-private partnership projects that the Government has undertaken has troubled a number of members. Is the Executive's strategy joined up? To those of us who are observing from the sidelines, that does not appear to be the case.

I am conscious of the point that John Swinney raises. We have developed a programme that focuses on driving forward our commitment to renewables across the Executive. My friend the Minister for Energy will make further announcements on biomass. He is addressing the lack of connectivity between certain of the incentives and assessing whether that can be tackled through public contracts.

We are conscious of the fact that we have to keep pushing on with the green jobs strategy. We must ensure not only that we acknowledge the need for work in that area, but that it develops environmental technologies, so that we have at our command more tools to enable us to address the serious problems. The convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee also referred to the need for us to pay attention to the national transport strategy and that, too, is being reviewed.

I very much take the point that one of the apparently obvious and simple measures to be taken—and one that we are developing—is the creation of a greater focus on energy efficiency. I assure Sarah Boyack that the Executive is working on that. We are also working with the United Kingdom Government to develop a UK adaptation policy framework, and we are funding the development of a Scottish climate change impacts partnership to address the impacts of climate change. We accept that the on-going review, which is embracing all aspects of Government, must drive the agenda forward. We have to come up with a different and much more focused programme—with a much more radical format—than programme number 1. We understand also that we cannot underestimate the contribution that Scotland can make. As a developed country, we have a responsibility to act and we are working in collaboration with the UK Government and our European and international partners. I believe that Scotland can help to make a difference, as was pointed out in today's time for reflection.

I am pleased to announce the publication today of the latest Scottish greenhouse gas inventory. It shows that, in 2003, Scottish greenhouse gas emissions were around 10 per cent lower than in the Kyoto baseline years and that UK emissions were 13 per cent lower in the same period. However, those statistics do not tell the whole story, and it is important not to draw a false conclusion because of the issues around energy and gas. The figures that we have produced today will be enormously helpful in taking forward the commitment that I have already given to have targets in the new climate change programme. Not only is it important that we have a more radical review; it is crucial that we have it expressed in terms that are measurable.

We welcome the data that were released this morning. Can the minister confirm that the Executive will now work towards establishing a national emissions target, especially as it is developing a much more robust data set in the area?

I acknowledge—as the committee's report acknowledges—that, although we are in possession of new data that will help us hugely in developing targets, creating a single target figure is very complex. As the committee report concludes, we are probably more likely to get more meaningful data to provide substance to sectoral targets. At the moment, that is our position. I still think that that will make the new review a much more robust document.

The review of our climate change programme is continuing, and the committee's inquiry report, together with the improved data to which I have referred, will make a key contribution to that. Together, through the actions of the committee, our interaction with it and our consultation on the process, we will end up with a much more radical and much-improved climate change programme, which I hope will respond to the requirements not just of the committee but of Parliament as a whole.

We all agree that, from the sad loss of an entire family in South Uist last winter to the massive destruction and loss of life that we have seen in New Orleans in recent weeks, we are reminded constantly of the potential impact of climate on our daily lives.

The Environment and Rural Development Committee's report addresses an important and wide-ranging issue. It is a great pity that the time that has been made available to debate the report is so short; the actions of people are a major variable in the equations that determine climate change and we all have to take responsibility for our actions. Of course, we need to think globally and, if anything worth while is to come out of recent events in the southern states of the United States, it will be that the biggest polluter on the planet has been made to think about its role in causing climate change and the part that it can play in tackling the problem.

We also need to act locally and, as the committee's report says, urgently. Unfortunately, I did not sense any urgency in what the minister said this afternoon. For example, we need to set ambitious targets for carbon emission reduction and we need to take policy decisions that will meet those targets.

Paragraph 177 of the report states:

"The transport sector was regarded by most witnesses as absolutely central to addressing climate change."

I could not agree more: a comparison of different forms of transport points the way towards progress in this regard. The Carbon Trust shows that on a per passenger kilometre basis, buses are more polluting than trains and that cars are the most polluting of all. I think that we might have already guessed that.

It is apposite that we are having a debate on climate change this afternoon and a debate on the A9 at 5 o'clock this evening; some of the same issues are likely to arise. I listened to the minister's colleague, Tavish Scott, on the radio this morning saying that one of the things that we need to do about the A9 is to improve the rail network into Perth so that folk are more likely to get out of their cars and into the trains—if only.

The Executive must promote, develop, improve and invest in our rail network much faster than it is doing at present. Apart from the very real problems that I face in trying to travel efficiently by rail from my home to the Parliament because of the shortcomings of the Perth to Edinburgh link, I have the experience in my constituency of several small campaigns for the opening or reopening of railways to serve communities that are almost wholly dependent on cars. Members with similar experiences will know just how incredibly slow the process is. We need, literally, to get moving much faster.

Another hot topic in my constituency is the contribution to climate change by various forms of electricity generation. I am entirely convinced of the benefits of wind power technology; at the same time, I am increasingly frustrated by the lack of any sort of national strategy to deal with the sense of many communities that there will be turbines on every hilltop. I do not support every proposed wind farm in my constituency, but I would far rather have a wind farm at the bottom of my garden than a nuclear power plant or, indeed, a nuclear waste dump. One of the most worrying aspects of the climate change debate has been the nuclear lobby's attempts to portray nuclear power as the clean, green answer to the problem. It is anything but.

Nuclear power is expensive and unsafe and, because of the waste that it produces, it is probably the least-clean energy around. There is little sign of any change in our lifetime, the lifetime of this building or even of this country.

The committee's report deserves to be taken more seriously and more urgently than seems to be the case at the moment. I hope that this will not be the only opportunity to discuss climate change.

Rather more than one and a half hours would seem appropriate. That would allow the likes of John Home Robertson to contribute. I look forward to coming back to this issue soon.

It was a pleasure to take part in the evidence taking on the inquiry. As a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee at the time, I found it valuable to have some of the evidence presented in a format that allowed us to make comparisons. However, as the convener of the committee said, we came to rather different conclusions, perhaps for reasons of politics and background. Nonetheless, the report in its broadest terms is extremely valuable and has provoked worthwhile discussion today.

I thank the clerks for the way in which the report is presented. However, I have one criticism in retrospect. Having allowed time to pass and then looked at the report again, I think that perhaps its scale and the priorities that were attached to various issues in it could have been handled differently. However, I say that with the advantage of time having passed.

We all agree that climate change and global warming are happening. However, we also know that global warming has been happening for at least 10,000 years. If we go further back into history, it is obvious that the functioning of the planet and of life on it has been designed to stabilise the temperature of the earth. As a result, CO2 has been tied into the soil in order to prevent the planet from heating up. Although we can do a great deal to prevent circumstances from becoming even worse, our priority must be to learn to cope with the situation that we face. It is perhaps the case that, whatever we do, we cannot reverse the process. Indeed, we might have to learn to live with a continuing process.

I have a brief intervention on cause and effect. The Parliament can have a limited effect on the causes of global warming. We have already heard about tsunamis, the New Orleans disaster and so on. The most recent records show that, in two years, 5,300 senior citizens died in this country of winter-related deaths.

Quickly.

We can do something about that, so I am sad to hear that nothing is being said about something that we can do, instead of talking about global warming, the effect of global warming—

This is becoming a speech, Mr Swinburne. I think that you have made your point.

I agree with part of what Mr Swinburne was saying at the beginning of his intervention, but I am not sure that I understood the references later on.

I understand the importance of the Parliament and the Government in dealing with the problems that we face. It is entirely appropriate that we take action to reduce CO2 emissions through saving energy wherever possible and through promoting energy efficiency and the better use of the energy that we have.

As Roseanna Cunningham said, we must remember that the problem is worldwide. If we are to lead by example, we must deliver worldwide advantage. We could do more to promote the use of biomass, for example—that is one thing that the Executive could have done more with in recent years. I am increasingly contacted on the subject, particularly by farmers, who are keen to get involved in biofuels but feel that the Executive's actions in promoting the production of liquid fuel on Scotland's farms are not as positive as they might be.

Looking at the issue in worldwide terms, I believe that Scotland needs urgently to address the fact that, whatever we do, we cannot expect the rest of the world to follow unless we set a genuine and good example. The great problem with CO2 emissions is that the fastest-developing economies in the world are also the largest ones. Countries such as China and India, with their huge coal reserves, find themselves wondering why we are telling them that they cannot use those reserves. The fact that we have already had the opportunity to develop our economies makes it difficult for us to argue the case.

Roseanna Cunningham spoke about nuclear power. Scotland has a great deal to teach the world about the use of safe nuclear energy. I also believe that Scotland could have a great deal to teach the world about the safe and economic use of our coal reserves, without releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. We need to invest in that technology. If we are not to have a proliferation of unsafe nuclear technology across the world, we must take the opportunity to promote safe nuclear energy here. That would not only prevent CO2 emissions, but give us a technology that we can export, ensuring that the disadvantages of nuclear energy do not blow around the world and come back to haunt us.

The inquiry that led to the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report was, I believe, one of the most important pieces of work that have ever been carried out by any committee of the Parliament. I thank the clerks in particular for the work that they put into it. I hope that the Executive's response to the challenges that are outlined in the report will not be mere warm words.

Anyone who attended the Environment and Rural Development Committee's opening evidence session on climate change or who subsequently read the Official Report of it could not fail to be impressed with the seriousness with which climatologists and other scientists have addressed the issue. Professor Hoskins of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said that the earth is

"as warm as it has been in the past million years—and we are turning up the radiator."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 26 January 2005; c 1522.]

That is a serious warning.

I welcome the emissions figures that the Executive has published today, but although some of our initiatives are good, they can still seem piecemeal. I welcome the grants for small community or individual household renewables, but, as John Swinney said, there is frustration among local authorities that cannot get wood-fired central heating installed in their PPP schools.

Is anyone in Scotland manufacturing wood pellets? No. Is anyone in Scotland manufacturing the stoves that will burn pellet or chip? No. Can we grow enough wood to make biomass a significant energy provider? We do not seem to know. Will land management contracts encourage the planting of more woodland? Foresters doubt it. How much engineering work in renewables will come to Scotland? Will Scottish banks support the development in Scotland of home-grown renewable businesses? It seems to me that we have an opportunity gap in renewables that needs to be bridged without delay. Is our present green jobs strategy up to the task?

How do we bring about a culture change without being environmental fascists? We know from health debates that we cannot just tell people to do what is good for them; we have to make people want it, too—there has to be a carrot as well as a stick.

Builders of houses offer us triple bathrooms rather than triple glazing, because they say that that is what the public demand, yet improved energy efficiency would deliver half our carbon reduction target. We need to make the public value energy efficiency.

On transport, we want to continue to enjoy cheap petrol and aeroplane flights as if fossil fuels were limitless and harmless. Even the oil and gas companies recognise the importance of sustainability and the role that they have to play in easing the inevitable transition to renewable alternatives. Where are the cheap rail fares, as Roseanna Cunningham asked?

There is important research to support in carbon sequestration and hydrogen technology and we commend the Executive's investment in such research, particularly in marine renewables. However, where is the route map? We know where we are and we know where we want to be, but how do we get there? Where are our targets in building standards and transport emissions? How do we persuade businesses and individuals to sign up for the journey when the past couple of years have seen such huge controversy surrounding the impact of wind farms and the upgrading of the grid? How do we persuade people to make significant lifestyle changes? How do we make such changes affordable for them and attractive to them?

The Executive has the major role to play and it cannot shirk it. It must not only regulate now for the future, but persuade the public of the seriousness of the need for change. I look forward to hearing radical proposals from the Executive in due course and to its setting practical examples that others can follow. The public sector will have to lead and set the example.

I appreciate the First Minister's announcement that targets will be set in the various sectors. We are all impatient to see the Executive's climate change strategy and we would like the minister's assurance that it is truly on course for delivery later this year.

I thank all those who were involved in the committee's inquiry and in producing the report. As I said, this has been one of the most important pieces of work that have been done in the Parliament. I am sorry that the chamber is so empty; it should have been packed, because climate change will impact on every person in Scotland and every person will have to take cognisance of it. We cannot ignore climate change, because it will have a great impact on our lives in all sorts of ways. I ask the minister to underline in his response the Executive's strong commitment to dealing with this serious matter.

I broadly welcome the findings of the Environment and Rural Development Committee's inquiry into climate change and congratulate the committee on producing a valuable report. In particular, I congratulate the convener and members of the committee on achieving cross-party unity—having heard Alex Johnstone's speech, I realise that extraordinary ability was needed for that.

The committee has been able to gather evidence on climate change and to take the longer view, which we rarely have a chance to do in the chamber. Because of that approach, it has been able to make strong recommendations to the Executive on behalf of the Parliament.

In contrast, I am gravely concerned by the Executive's hugely non-committal response to the committee. Its written response was very much a business-as-usual palm-off. I hope that the committee continues to engage with the Executive on the matter and brings the minister before it again to answer further questions, as the Enterprise and Culture Committee did when we had an inadequate response from the Executive to our inquiry into renewable energy.

I appreciate that the committee's work was timed to be coincidental with the review, but I think that it is a little unfair to say that, just because we are unable to disclose certain information because we have not finished that work, we are not able to tell the committee exactly what is in the review. That seems harsh in the extreme.

We need action from the Executive on things such as transport targets, which it is currently examining without acting on. We need action to be taken on climate change targets much more quickly than it looks as though it will be taken. The world is criticising George W Bush for not signing up to a global target. We need to meet our targets as quickly as possible.

The Executive's response to the committee states:

"Our objective is to deliver emissions reductions in Scotland without damaging economic development."

It is my perception that the Executive has not taken on board the fact that climate change will be responsible for a great deal of damage to economic development, as has been the case in every one of the climatic events in the world in the past two years. Making a quick and thorough response to climate change would be the best thing that we could do for economic development in this country. However, the Executive is not prepared to adjust significantly its short-term, business-as-usual mindset.

Today, the Tyndall centre for climate change research published an independent report showing that, if Government expectations for air transport expansion are realised, all other emissions will have to reduce to zero if we are to honour our commitments. Where is the Executive's action on that? If anything, the Executive's action is going in the other direction and encouraging more air transport emissions.

I strongly urge the Executive to reconsider its response to the committee's recommendations and particularly the committee's call for a national target. I note that, while the Environment and Rural Development Committee calls for national targets on transport, the Labour and Scottish National Party members on the Local Government and Transport Committee have closed their minds to the idea. That is deeply unfortunate. Scotland needs an overall climate change target that will focus minds and provide the impetus for a change from the Executive's business-as-usual attitude. I ask the minister to respond to that challenge in his summing-up speech.

I thank the members of the Environment and Rural Development Committee for their hard work in the preparation of the report.

We all know the facts about climate change. The scientists and experts have been telling us for long enough that our present lifestyles are unsustainable. If we keep on going the way we are, we will need two extra planets. The last time I looked, however, there was only one earth.

We all know the figures about climate change, such as that 90,000 Scottish homes are under threat of flooding. We know that the changes in the growing seasons will threaten the farming industry and that the changes in the sea will threaten our fishing industry—or, rather, what is left of it. However, what is the Executive going to do about the issue?

Since the Parliament opened, we have had countless debates on climate change, renewable energy and sustainable development. However, we have no national targets for recycling or emissions and we have seen the contract for a wave-energy generation system lost to Portugal.

I will examine four areas that contribute to climate change: energy production, transport, forestry and farming. In Scotland, we are lucky, in that we have vast amounts of renewable energy available to us. We also have an Executive that is responsible for the promotion of renewable energy. What progress has been made? Despite the Executive's pledge to increase participation in renewable energy projects by communities and local authorities, we see a lack of support for such projects. That should come as no surprise because, in Scotland, we have no strategic approach to renewable energy development. Climate change is happening now, but we have no strategic approach—I repeat that point because it is extremely important.

Transport is predicted to become the sector with the greatest emissions by 2015, so the Executive must act now. We need to devote energy to and invest in the development of a proper public transport system and a proper freight rail system. We need that now. So far, we have seen little progress, but we have seen a £1 billion trunk road building programme, including the M74 extension. What exactly is that doing to address climate change?

Last week, in the chamber, I asked the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications about the transportation of timber in light of the fact that the timber crop in Dumfries and Galloway is set to rise in the next 10 to 15 years. He stated that the national transport strategy will be brought to the Parliament next year. It will be next year before we have the strategy and who knows how long before anything is implemented. I hope that it is worth the wait.

In Scotland, we have a timber industry that could be the envy of the world. We have timber that we can use as wood fuel as well as in the building industry, but where is the support and development? The committee's report highlights the fact that the forestry strategy does not include any emissions-related objectives and has no vision for the maximum contribution of forestry towards tackling climate change. I hope that the Executive will take on board the report's recommendation that the forestry strategy should be reviewed to include climate change issues.

Lastly, the farming industry produces vast amounts of greenhouse gases. What has the Executive done to address that? We know that organic farming is increasing, yet we still have to import much of the organic food that is sold in Scotland, which adds to the problems of climate change. Why is our organic aid scheme so overbureaucratic that farmers are leaving organic farming? The scheme is a waste of public money and a cause of stress to farmers and it does nothing to address climate change. We also have land management contracts that do not address climate change considerations. Climate change must be fully integrated into a review of the agricultural strategy. It is telling that the committee voiced concerns about the lack of leadership on the issue in the farming sector.

As I said, the committee's report is excellent and no one doubts the real need to address climate change. I therefore challenge the Executive to act on the findings of the report and to do something about climate change.

One of the wake-up calls that I heard on the environment was when I learned many years ago that acid rain effects on the Scandinavian forests can be traced back to the very beginning of Britain's industrial revolution. That is quite a thought, because now, two centuries later, we are having to face the effects of human activity on our climate. We are looking at the Kyoto protocol and the targets on greenhouse gas emissions that we have all agreed to meet, but we should also reflect on how long the process has been going on and how quickly it is accelerating.

People ask why we should bother about climate change when Scotland can make only an infinitesimal contribution to the action that is needed globally, but I think that the parable of the starfish, which was mentioned at this afternoon's time for reflection, is apt. To look at the matter in a selfish way, if we do not act, we will face some of the adverse consequences. As Alex Johnstone said, we need to lead by example. Why should we ask developing economies to be more responsible in their use of energy if we are not prepared to be more responsible? There are practical things to be gained, in that the technologies and strategies that we develop can be shared with other countries. As Alex Johnstone also said, if we develop clean coal technology and share it with China, where there are vast developments, that will be for the global good.

The Environment and Rural Development Committee's report asks several questions. What are we doing about climate change? Are our actions delivering on the obligations that, collectively, we have accepted? In some cases, the answer is, perhaps, not so far. Is climate change a consideration in all policy areas? What actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be seen as priorities? We recognise that an effect exists, but we have no idea how great it might become, because a time lag occurs between cause and effect. We need to consider how we adapt to the known changes, but we will also need to adapt to the inevitable consequences of past behaviour that may have 20 years of effect still to happen.

The first step in dealing with a problem is to recognise that it exists. Its existence is now without question and scientific consensus has been reached on the matter. The committee report takes the next step of asking what we do about the problem. The problem is long term, wide ranging and complex. It has taken us a long time to get into this mess and it will take us a long time to get out of it—if that is even possible—or to get over it.

Action is needed in a wide range of areas and actions must be planned far into the future. It is vital to have an integrated strategy and a clear idea of the desired outcome. That must be broken down into manageable and incremental steps.

Greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced in the key sectors of energy, transport and land use. Because of our type of soil, land use is particularly relevant to efforts in Scotland. In transport, graphs are all going the wrong way. Much effort and not a little political courage will be needed to cut demand in addition to taking the more popular actions to improve public transport, especially rail.

In energy, there are no big simple solutions—at least, there is only one, which is to use less. That means that we require the cumulative effect of myriad smaller solutions. It is perfectly possible to meet many of the target emission reductions in the energy sector by dealing with demand rather than supply. The place where the most difference can be made is—surprisingly—not in the industrial sector, but in our lives as individuals.

The scope is enormous for energy savings in the choices that people make about travel, about the houses in which they live and about the appliances that they buy and how they use them. We will not make progress until that potential is harnessed. People power works. We can make people aware—we can give them good information about the choices that they can make and the tools to make them—and stand well back. We will have triple glazing, not triple bathrooms.

The Scottish Executive can do much to facilitate choice. Overall, it must develop an integrated strategy complete with action plans for all sectors and a route map with milestones and timeframes that are underpinned by information that lets us know when we reach them.

I was greatly impressed by the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report and by the speech that Sarah Boyack, the committee's convener, gave. The report goes into detail on many aspects of climate change and pulls together all the information for those of us who do not deal with it day to day. I read the report with interest and some disquiet.

Sarah Boyack quoted the stark warning from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which is on page 1 of the report. It is worth restating:

"If we go for business as usual … we are destined for something unimaginable."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, 26 January 2005; c 1545.]

Roseanna Cunningham showed how some people have already faced the unimaginable horror of what climate change can do.

However, it is not all horror. The next paragraph of the committee's report says:

"A massive possibility for change exists at government, business and individual levels, given the right policy levers and leadership."

I urge the Scottish Executive to promote that possibility for change. It should start from the top—the Government—and work down to business and individuals. It should use the right policy levers and show leadership.

The committee and many knowledgeable commentators have pushed for a national target that will allow for sectoral objectives and a strategy to achieve them. As WWF Scotland says in its commentary on the report:

"The Scottish Executive's response"

is

"that they are still very much against the key measure—an overall climate change target for Scotland."

I do not understand why that is the case. WWF Scotland says:

"Without this demonstration of political will Scotland is bound to fail to make an equal contribution to the UK's Kyoto Protocol target of a 12.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2008-2012."

As Sarah Boyack said, the issue is not only about Scotland; it is not only about our sitting here wondering how climate change affects us. Everything that the developed world does has knock-on effects on people in poorer countries. We have already seen the awful effects that there can be, but things will get worse.

I was interested in what Maureen Macmillan said about the many things that can be done. Many small initiatives could do with support from the Government at the top. In asking for a route map, she reflected what the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report states. On page 63, the report says:

"At all levels individual citizens and business people need a route map for how we can move towards a carbon-free world. High level government action is clearly required in many policy areas."

It states:

"there are many ways in which significant contributions … can be achieved by individuals (with little cost to the public purse) if they are effectively engaged in the process."

Being "effectively engaged" is the key. As the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing note states, in our country,

"none of this is new—most people understand the messages that increased energy use and consumption are bad … but the key is making it easier for them to make more sustainable choices."

That is where radical leadership is required. In paragraph after paragraph, the committee's report urges radical action from the top to encourage everyone else. Some solutions may be difficult for people to implement, but the Government's job is to make decisions about what is necessary for the greater good.

The report is important and could be the key to the way forward. However, there is not enough time to discuss the implications and potential solutions that are noted in it. Members have called for much greater debate and discussion, which I, too, would welcome. The Executive's response has been somewhat disappointing in the light of the report's radical nature, but the response does not have to be disappointing. We could move forward.

I have in my hand the summary document on the climate change inquiry that the committee produced—it has been referred to a great deal. Its first words say it all:

"The world's climate is changing."

The challenge for every right-thinking individual and Government is how to put in place measures that will deal with the climatic juggernaut that is heading in our direction.

I do not have to travel far from my old home in North Uist to see the extent and impact of the changes that have taken place in a few short years. The changing and ever-shifting sands of the machair, for example, are a constant reminder of them. Members have mentioned the dreadful storms in January this year that brought home to all of us the tragic and devastating effect of higher seas and more frequent storms—the convener of the committee highlighted that matter in her opening remarks.

The community that I represent is all too well aware of the awesome power of the ocean and the elements, but the January storms truly gave all of us real cause to take stock and to plan in a different way for the decades ahead. We must take stock and revisit the age-old certainties that we took for granted. In years past, people built houses close to the shore in low-lying areas, but that is no longer an option for people who are building new homes.

Three weeks ago, the good men of Ness in Lewis returned from their annual hunt to Sulasgeir—which is 40 miles north of Lewis—with the solemn news that the orders for all of us who had pre-ordered guga would have to be reduced by half. The usually robust gannet colony on Sulasgeir is no longer what it used to be. Changes in the climate have greatly affected the bird population and a 1,000-year-old tradition has been threatened. The bird colony's viability is certainly under threat in my lifetime.

That is why the approach that the so-called Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has taken with respect to renewable energy projects not only in my constituency but throughout the country is bewildering. The society is a virulent opponent of wind farms and takes an inherently dishonest and illogical position.

On Monday, I visited the Arnish yard in Stornoway, which is at the forefront of the renewable energy revolution. Seventy men were working on a Portuguese wave generator. It is encouraging to see the progress that is being made across Europe.

For years, Western Isles Council has been trying to create an energy zone—a philosophy that is eminently exportable. Rightly, the council wants to embrace a range of energy generation solutions that can be taken across the world. I know that the Executive is serious about supporting that.

Chris Ballance of the Greens raised the issue of transport policy. Just before I came into the chamber, I was encouraged to hear what Ross Finnie's UK counterpart, Elliot Morley, has said in relation to aviation emissions: he wants them to be included in international agreements, which is a sensible and proper approach. He is also seeking advances in technology that will limit emissions. That is very necessary, given the prediction that UK air passenger numbers will rise from 180 million to 475 million by the year 2030.

I acknowledge what the member says about the importance of including the air industry in the emissions trading scheme. However, does he acknowledge the evidence that the committee received suggesting that that will not be enough to tackle the problem?

I hope that the member welcomes the inclusion of the air industry in the scheme. The position that has been taken by the UK Government, supported by the Executive, is the responsible one. I hope that the Green party will join us in supporting it.

Sarah Boyack, my eminent colleague and convener, who marshals her troops marvellously, spoke from a committee perspective and was right to highlight what we learned as a committee. A business-as-usual approach is simply not acceptable and a reduction in emissions is key.

Members from all parties are correct in stating that this institution on its own will not save the world, but we can and will make our contribution. Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the biggest polluter on the planet and how it has been so savagely reminded of the consequences of doing business as usual.

I do not think that my colleague John Home Robertson is in the chamber, but he wanted to mention Alex Johnstone's contribution. He said that it was statesmanlike and wise.

This has been a short, useful and well-informed debate. I urge all members to support the motion in Sarah Boyack's name.

I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of interests, which declares that I own land, part of which is under development as part of a wind farm. I express the hope that that statement finds more approval with members of the committee than it possibly finds with some of my colleagues.

Earlier this year, I was half listening to a programme on the radio when I heard a phrase that gave me quite a jolt and grabbed my attention. The person who was being interviewed had started to talk about global dimming. Like everyone else, I had heard a great deal about global warming, but global dimming was a new one to me. Apparently, in the three days following the tragic events of 11 September 2001, during which the world's aircraft were universally grounded, scientists could detect a significant improvement in air quality, due to the lack of aircraft fuel vapour in our skies. I found it quite frightening that such a measurement could be detected in just three days. It certainly put to the back of my mind any notion that climate change could be either a figment of some scientist's imagination or part of the natural cycle of our planet's evolution. We undoubtedly have a problem that is man-made; therefore, it is the duty of man to address it.

Conservative members welcome and accept the broad thrust of the committee's report. As a former convener of the Rural Development Committee, I commend the Environment and Rural Development Committee for the impressive work that it has put in to produce it. However, like all reports, it is to a degree designed to be thought provoking. In the short time that is available to me, I would like to provoke a little thought on one or two issues.

The report states that by 2015 transport is predicted to take over from energy as the biggest emissions sector. The report recommends that the Executive's transport strategy should firmly integrate emissions reduction targets into transport planning. That is a fine statement, but I am not sure that it stacks up if it is intended as a one-size-fits-all approach. If one compares the use of the car in my very rural constituency, coupled with the comparative lack of alternative means of transport, with the use of cars and availability of alternatives in the central belt, one sees that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution.

Although I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications's announcement yesterday that three identified improvement projects on the A75 are to be put out to tender, that should be part of an on-going process of improvements to the route, certainly for economic reasons and because there are genuinely beneficial environmental reasons for some targeted road improvements.

I understand that it now takes something like 12 Minis to produce the same amount of pollution as one of the original models used to produce. The technology must continue to improve, but we must guard against punishing use of the car unnecessarily in our most rural areas as we seek to address the important global issues.

Will the member take an intervention?

I really do not have time, but if I find that I do, I will let the member come back in.

You have time if you wish.

The member is a substitute on our committee at the moment. One of the recommendations in the report was that we should take a social justice perspective on transport. We accept that it is not a case of one size fits all, but we are trying to focus on where we can make savings. We did not want to penalise people who live in rural parts of the country—we were keen to emphasise that—but we wanted a much harder look to be taken at emissions throughout the country.

I am grateful that I had time to take that intervention and I thank the member for her reassurances on the matter.

We must not allow theoretically sound projects to falter through not being properly thought through. I give members a brief example. Dumfries and Galloway Council's waste PPP proposals could have resulted in the waste-derived fuel at the end of the process being used to create energy, fuel a greenhouse-based enterprise and create a significant number of new jobs. Indeed, when I questioned several aspects of the proposal, just such a venture was paraded before me by the preferred bidders as a sop to my concerns. However, once the PPP was awarded, the proposer of the energy-from-waste plant was unceremoniously dumped so, for at least seven years, the waste-derived fuel will simply be consigned to landfill. What sort of environmental improvement is that? The Executive must ensure that such potentially beneficial schemes are properly thought through; currently, they are not.

The Presiding Officer's patience will probably run out shortly but, according to the report, 40 per cent of energy could be saved. That is simply another way of saying that 40 per cent of energy is gratuitously wasted. The Executive could do a great deal to highlight some of the small items that are referred to, such as the use of energy-saving light bulbs, which could make a real difference.

If the report is to lead anywhere, we need not more targets from the Executive, but a little more action.

The debate has been on a wide topic and is difficult to summarise. Sarah Boyack effectively set the context at the start when she spoke about the consequences and why action is needed, outlined where it is needed and emphasised the need for a route map.

In answer, Ross Finnie made it clear that the strategy that we have called for is being developed throughout the Scottish Executive and promised that it would be both more focused and more radical.

I totally agreed with Roseanna Cunningham's point that it is the actions of people that will have the most effect. I also agreed with what she said about the nuclear industry.

Alex Johnstone made the point that our priority might have to be learning to cope with where we are rather than trying to halt or reverse the effects of global warming. I say to him that although I am quite sure that we could have safe nuclear energy, my problem with it is a pragmatic one—it will cost an awful lot of money that would be better applied in other ways.

Maureen Macmillan spoke about the piecemeal efforts that are being made and about what more could and should be done. She asked the Executive, "How?"

Chris Ballance welcomed the opportunity to take the longer view, although he was worried by what he saw as a non-committal response from the Executive. I will return to that later. He pointed out that if we are talking about economic development, the best thing that we could do would be to look at economic damage. He also called for more action on transport.

I agree with Rosemary Byrne that the revised forestry strategy must include consideration of the effects of climate change and what can be done to mitigate those and I am sure that it will.

Linda Fabiani was right to say that everything that the developed world does has a knock-on effect on the third world. Her other point was that the key was engaging people effectively in the work to meet the challenges of climate change.

Alasdair Morrison said that, with the effects of climate change, we all need to think differently. Alex Fergusson provided another wake-up call by pointing out that grounding aircraft for three days has a measurable effect on air quality. He also made a very good point about energy wastage.

A thread of disappointment at the Scottish Executive's response to the report has run through the debate. All I can say is that I hope that the Executive's Scottish climate change programme will be radical and focused and that it will allow us to begin to tackle the challenges that climate change presents.

As members from all parties have pointed out, the incidence of freak floods in this country, droughts in Africa and hurricanes that can overwhelm major American cities leaves us in little doubt that the climate is changing. However, what can we do about it?

As Sarah Boyack mentioned, a report from the Tyndall centre for climate change research published this very day states that, if air travel continues to grow at its present pace, the UK will have no hope of reducing emissions to the target figure of 60 per cent by the mid-century. Of course, the rate at which China builds coal-fired power stations makes it difficult to see how a little country such as Scotland can influence global climate change. Perhaps Oliver Letwin's suggestion that an independent body—the Royal Bank of Scotland, perhaps—should preside over the UK's transition to a low-carbon economy has some merit. Certainly Friends of the Earth believes that such an approach could be more effective than Government supervision.

Does the member also agree with Mr Letwin that we need to make year-on-year reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions and that having a national target is perhaps the best way of doing that?

Broadly speaking, I think that I agree with Mr Ruskell. I am about to come on to that point.

Despite the minister's certainty, not all scientists accept that global warming exists. Although some, such as Professor Bjørn Lomborg of the University of Aarhus in Denmark, accept that such a phenomenon is possible, they believe that we can do little about it; that it might be a good thing for some of us; and that, in any case, more pressing issues must be dealt with.

I hasten to assure the chamber that that does not represent my own view. As an optimistic agnostic, I believe that, given our current state of ignorance, we should act in a way that ensures that we are not disadvantaged, whatever the outcome. We cannot continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without seriously considering the consequences.

So what should we do? The immediate and obvious answer—not just on environmental grounds—is that we should drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We can do far better things with oil and coal than run cars and fuel power stations.

As Alex Johnstone and other members have stated, we should also launch a major programme of energy efficiency. Renewable energy technology has a role to play in that respect—I will say more about that later—but we could introduce certain basic policies now. As Alex Fergusson said, a staggering 40 per cent of the energy that we use could be saved by introducing house insulation improvement schemes that cover windows, heating methods, smart meters and low-energy light bulbs. We desperately need a UK—and indeed Scottish—energy strategy. Over the years, UK Governments of various hues have failed to introduce such a strategy, and I must say that this Executive's response to the committee's report reflects a degree of urgency that is perhaps best summed up in the word "mañana".

Although I accept Alasdair Morrison's claim that these days the gugas are in short supply in Ness, presumably because of a shortage of feedstuffs, there are other reports of pilchards, sea bass and other Mediterranean species becoming more plentiful in Scottish waters. I remember hearing the dire tales of cod being fished out off the Newfoundland Grand banks; however, they simply seem to have moved into the cooler mid-waters of the Atlantic. Moreover, when the cod moved away from the Grand banks, that fishing was replaced by a healthy shellfish industry, which is now worth more than the cod fishery ever was. I am by no means complacent about any effect on North sea cod and haddock stocks; we want those fish in Scottish waters. However, there is much that we still do not know about climate change's long-term effects.

Finally, renewables will play an important part in any future energy mix that is based on reduced use of fossil fuels. As Sarah Boyack and others stated, Scotland is well placed in that respect, what with the possibilities of wave power, tidal power, hydro power, wind power, biomass and the imaginative use of photovoltaic technology, which works effectively in Scandinavia and the north-east United States.

The Executive's current energy policy has been obsessed with onshore wind power, which I believe, despite my colleague Alex Fergusson's interest, has resulted in mounting opposition to large-scale wind farms throughout the country, such as at Clatto in north-east Fife, where 18 turbines have been proposed—each of them one and a half times larger than the Scott monument—in an area of outstanding natural beauty. A recent cost-benefit analysis of onshore wind farms carried out by the University of Stirling has concluded that they will cause losses, not gains, to Scotland's environment and economy. According to the Stirling researchers, every megawatt of electricity generated by onshore wind farms comes at an annual environmental cost to the average Scot of £7. The result showed conclusively that, although offshore wind farms were environmentally acceptable, most onshore ones were not. At the very least, I believe that the Executive now has a responsibility to introduce new planning guidelines, so that local authorities, communities and developers get adequate guidance on where onshore wind farms might be sited.

I commend the motion and the committee's report.

My first public appointment of the day was in the car park of the Motorgrill at Ballinluig at some ludicrously early hour of the morning, to do an interview about the improvements to the A9 that will be the subject of business later this afternoon. As I drove down to the Parliament later on, a caller to a radio programme said that politicians who argue on the one hand for dramatic reductions in carbon emissions as part of a climate change effort and on the other for road building are hypocrites of the first order—and here I am closing this debate on climate change. At least I do not feel quite so alone since Alex Fergusson made his declaration of interests, which perhaps puts into context some of the challenges that we face in this world that we live in.

I am pleased to be closing the debate and to be able to reflect on an important report from the Environment and Rural Development Committee. This is not the first debate that the Parliament has had on climate change; we had an effective debate on some of the issues in the previous parliamentary year. One of the key themes that came out of that debate, which has come out of today's debate again and which was outlined powerfully by Sarah Boyack in her introductory comments on the report, is the importance of having an effective national strategy and national framework in place to guide all activities in this policy area. In this country, we are in the fortunate position of having a debate that is based on the fact that we all agree that there is a problem. We have moved on from the debate about whether there is an issue to be addressed; we now agree that there is a problem that must be addressed. The question is about how effectively we can undertake the work to do that.

I have been struck by the common theme that emerged in the speeches by Sarah Boyack and, in particular, Maureen Macmillan, which is that there is a particular role for the public sector in driving a number of the initiatives. When we consider the scale of the public sector and the influence and significance that are attached to everything that the public sector does, it is undeniable that public sector leadership would do an enormous amount to advance some of the issues that we are concerned about. In an intervention, I raised a point with the minister—and got a more promising response than I had begun to expect from the Executive—about the use of public sector procurement in that respect. Members will know, as the minister does, that my concern is that major PPP investments in the schools estate in my constituency may be constrained by the fact that the desired use of wood-fuel heating systems is unaffordable because wood-fuel systems are more expensive than conventional, oil-fired heating systems.

That is a classic example of the need within the public sector to find a way of bridging the gap between having a conventional heating system that will undoubtedly contribute to damage to the environment and having a wood-fuel heating system that, although more expensive to install, will be neutral in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. I have already had a number of approaches from people with interests in the forestry sector in my constituency who are desperate for projects to go ahead because they would provide a market for their wood-fuel products. Crucially, such schemes would have no damaging impact on the environment.

The Government could seize the opportunity to link up different aspects of policy. I have to say that I found Mr Finnie's response to me earlier a great deal more encouraging than Mr Brown's response to me on the subject last Thursday, and I hope that significant action materialises.

The other key point that has come out of the debate is the importance of having established targets to guide our activity. The Environment and Rural Development Committee's report states:

"The Committee believes that the evidence shows climate change to be an urgent and extremely serious challenge for government."

It continues:

"It requires political commitment at the heart of the Scottish Executive, and urgent application by policy-makers in every department and sector of Scottish government."

I appreciate that the Government is reviewing its response to climate change, but the use of that kind of language does not sound to me like anything other than a parliamentary committee giving a big wake-up call to the Scottish Executive, which should intensify the pace at which the issues are being tackled.

I will raise a couple of other points about the practical issues that have been raised with me in my constituency. The renewables sector, which Mr Brocklebank and Alasdair Morrison commented on, is obviously controversial. It is important that as soon as possible the Government advances improvements to the planning framework to allow us to resolve and rationalise the issues.

Last week, I attended a meeting in the town of Birnam in my constituency. There are applications for four colossal wind farms within a 10-mile radius of the village of Amulree, about 8 miles away, and I have no idea how one rationalises one application against another. If every application is deemed to be satisfactory because it passes all the tests, does that mean that they all go ahead? There is a need for the Government to acknowledge the scale of the problem and to tackle the planning framework for onshore wind farms. I thought that the minister had said in previous debates that fresh guidelines would emerge before the summer, and I expected those to be forthcoming, but I have not seen anything emerge, so I hope that there is clarity on the issue as soon as possible.

Not far from Birnam, a proposal is emerging for a small-scale hydro scheme on the River Braan. I am advised that the scheme would generate enough power to fuel a town the size of Pitlochry, which is also in my constituency. Such small-scale, unobtrusive schemes represent an effective use of geography and should be utilised to their maximum potential. Such schemes will be controversial—people are objecting to the hydro scheme because it would cause difficulties for canoeists—but there is plenty opportunity to undertake them in a sensitive fashion. I hope that the Government will address the matter.

The other constituency issue that I will raise concerns the consequences of flooding. Alasdair Morrison mentioned the tragic events in his constituency in January, which commanded the sympathy of Parliament. In all our constituencies, people's lives have been turned upside down. The events have been on nothing like the scale that we have seen in international situations, but they have happened closer to home and have had an immediate impact on individual householders. I hope that the Government will reconsider having an effective national strategy on flooding, which it has not been willing to pursue. A lot of buck passing to local authorities is going on when there is a problem with local schemes.

The committee's report is excellent. I hope that it will intensify the Government's efforts to tackle the issue and will lead to a refreshing debate about how we can contribute to tackling here in Scotland an issue that is a global problem.

This has been an interesting and varied debate on what I think is an important and challenging committee report.

Against the background of what has been said during the debate and the report's range of proposals, it is important to emphasise that, as Ross Finnie said, our climate change response is still formally under review. As a result, we are unable to respond definitively to some of the committee's recommendations. However, where we have been unable to provide a full response, we aim to respond in greater detail in our revised Scottish climate change programme. We look forward very much to working on that with the committee.

I will respond to points that have been raised in the debate. Maureen Macmillan and John Swinney raised the issue of biomass's important contribution. Indeed, the forum for renewable energy in Scotland found a potential for 450MW of capacity from biomass, which would create 2,000 jobs. Biomass has huge potential and, as Ross Finnie said, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will make an announcement on that in the near future.

Rosemary Byrne and Nora Radcliffe referred to the need for forestry strategy to recognise the importance of forestry land in reducing emissions. I agree with that view, which will be reflected in the review of forestry strategy.

Sarah Boyack said that climate change must be factored into public sector decision making. She is right, of course, and that is why the Executive is taking the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill through Parliament. I believe that the Executive is showing leadership in this hugely important area.

Two members stated that nuclear energy has an important role to play in addressing climate change. However, I repeat that the Executive will not support further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved.

John Swinney referred to planning. I understand that national planning policy guideline 6, on renewable energy, is under review. I am happy to give him more information about that and the timescales that are involved.

In addition to our domestic action, it is important not to understate the contribution that Scotland is making, as part of the UK, to wider international efforts to respond to climate change.

I am grateful to the minister for her comments on NPPG 6. Can she give us any information today on the timescale for the review of that guideline and the announcement of its results? Alternatively, she may wish to write to me about that later.

I do not have such information to hand, but I am more than happy to give it in writing to Mr Swinney.

Will the minister give way?

I would like to carry on, if that is okay.

We input to UK negotiations in United Nations and European Union fora. We do so because implementing much of the Kyoto protocol and transposing all EU environmental directives are devolved to the Executive. For example, we are implementing the EU emissions trading scheme and its linking directive, which will introduce two other Kyoto mechanisms: the clean development mechanism and joint implementation. We will also be involved in implementing the proposed European Commission regulation on fluorinated gases.

Around 120 installations in Scotland are part of the EU emissions trading scheme and they are expected to reduce CO2 emissions to around 6.5 million tonnes below projected emissions over the next three years. Large emitters, such as Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy, as well as some universities and the largest hospitals, which account for almost 50 per cent of Scottish emissions, are captured by the scheme.

We are working with the UK Government to develop the UK's national allocation plan for the second phase of the trading scheme, which starts in 2008. In time, the scheme will encourage major companies such as Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy to invest in sustainable projects in developing countries, while allowing such countries to engage more substantially in the UN climate change process—that is something that we all want.

Reference has been made to the problem of aviation emissions. Given the increasing impact that aviation emissions are having on total emissions, it is important that the Executive supports the UK Government's efforts to include intra-EU aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme, which has huge potential and is very important.

We are committed to ensuring that our revised climate change programme clearly supports our objectives in this area. The revised programme will send signals about the level of the Executive's commitment. That is why we have committed ourselves to developing climate change targets in areas of devolved responsibility. Such targets will have an important role in demonstrating our commitment across a wide range of devolved policy areas and in providing clear benchmarks against which to judge our progress.

Our climate change response will continue to develop over time. That is why our response is subject to continued monitoring and review—and why we agree with the committee's recommendation that an independent audit regime would be desirable for the revised Scottish programme. We intend to report in the revised programme on our plans to introduce such a regime.

The greenhouse gas emissions data that were published today go a considerable way towards demonstrating the Scottish Executive's commitment to playing its full part in tackling the very real threat that is posed by climate change—and I think that many of us were touched by Alasdair Morrison's experience in his constituency.

I will finish by saying that the Executive will continue to use its powers to encourage further action in support of a stable climate for its people and, indeed, for the people of the world.

We have had a good and wide-ranging debate, which has presented quite a challenge to me in closing. I thank everybody who has participated, all who took part in our inquiry—we had some passionate contributions—and the clerks and research staff who helped us very ably throughout.

At the outset, I say that the committee's report stands as a signpost. In one direction, it points to the failure of the past; in the other, it points to the way out and how Scotland can trail-blaze the path to future safety. The report shows that the war against climate change is not simple and cannot be won on a single front. It demands that we stop climate change by slashing emissions at the same time as we are dealing with symptoms such as flooding that are already happening. It demands that small, short-term, local action—such as developing micro-renewables in our homes, schools and offices—should take place alongside the big, international, long-term agreements such as the Kyoto treaty. It demands that priorities be changed and that there be only joined-up thinking in government and not contradictory policy. It demands all that from the state, from corporations and from individuals.

Tackling climate change is quite simply the hardest and most important challenge that society faces. It is disappointing—and a lot of disappointment has been expressed in the chamber this afternoon—that the Executive's response to the committee's report is depressingly weak in meeting that challenge. The response grasps the enormousness of the problem, but it lacks the leadership to deliver. That point was made ably by Linda Fabiani.

Let us consider just one small action—the implementation of the EU's buildings directive. Apparently, the Executive cannot do anything soon because we do not have enough buildings inspectors in Scotland. We are engaged in a war against climate change—would Churchill have pulled back in the second world war because of a lack of inspectors? No—he would have gone on and tackled the problem.

Many members have quoted the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's good words in evidence to the committee—that we are "destined for something unimaginable" if we just go on with business as usual. The tragic images that we saw on television of people floating dead in the water after hurricane Katrina left little to my imagination but, by God, we can expect much worse around the globe unless we get this right.

The committee heard evidence on what the impacts might be in Scotland. It is clear that we will see more extreme weather and we learned of the risk of flooding. That will really worry people in John Swinney's constituency in my region of Perthshire, who are already vulnerable to flooding. We heard that the flooding risk could increase by up to 20 times by the mid-point of the century.

Our response so far in Scotland has been inadequate, and the committee has said so. We have failed to make the kind of cuts in pollution that are desperately needed. Figures that were released this morning show that climate change emissions in Scotland fell by around 10 per cent between 1990 and 2003—an apparent surge in reduction from last year's figure, which was only 5.7 per cent. I think that that requires some further investigation. Even in light of today's revised figures, the Executive must still achieve a 12 per cent reduction in seven years' time if its performance is to be in line with UK targets. That will be extremely hard for the Executive to do on the back of its response to our report, which is lacking in substance.

I will go further and say that I believe that the Executive has been somewhat disingenuous in its response by suggesting that the committee rejected the idea of having a national target for emissions reductions on the basis that we do not have enough levers of power in Scotland. That is simply not the case. The committee agreed that the Executive should work towards having a national target. I invite the minister to take the response back to his civil servants and to get them to reword it. When Gordon Brown sets targets for the UK economy, he is not in control of all the levers, just as Andy Kerr is not in control of all the levers when he sets targets for teenage pregnancies. We set those targets because we aim for important goals. What could be more important than tackling climate change?

It is important that we consider what role each sector can play in meeting a national target. It is welcome that the Executive has agreed to consider sectoral targets for energy and transport, which are two of the biggest problem areas for getting our emissions down. However, there is still no clarity on how ambitious those targets will be. Post-G8, the climate change programme is still dangerously delayed. We expected it to be completed before G8, but we are still waiting for much of the detail.

I turn to particular sectors that were mentioned during our climate change inquiry and which members have brought up during the debate. Energy is a problem sector. The electricity industry is the biggest producer of climate change emissions in Scotland and its production of such emissions is going up rather than down. Electricity is part of the problem, not the solution. Many members, including Ted Brocklebank, have highlighted a crucial recommendation in our report, on the need for us to take energy efficiency seriously. In our report, we suggest that making efficiency savings of 40 per cent is doable.

We must understand the route map and realise what the mix of energy sources will be in the future. Alex Johnstone is right—we will have one hell of a debate when we come to discuss what that mix should be. It is clear that micro-renewables and biomass, which many members have mentioned, have a role and that they should be in the mix. I thank John Swinney for bringing up our perpetual frustration about the situation at Breadalbane Academy, about which we have asked numerous questions. The school just wants to make the small step of installing a biomass heating system in its new premises, but it cannot because it is constrained by the SCHRI fund. We must sort out such small issues as well as big issues such as the need for national climate change targets.

Does Mr Ruskell agree that Mr Finnie's response earlier in the debate was slightly more encouraging than the response that we got from Mr Brown last Thursday? If the logic of the argument that has been advanced during the debate is followed, there should be no impediment to Breadalbane Academy's project getting the go-ahead.

That is true, but we have been round the houses on the issue numerous times. Mr Swinney and I have spoken to about four different ministers. We are talking about an issue of joined-up government. There is no alternative to joined-up government. The case of Breadalbane Academy is a classic example of the small issues that need to be tackled throughout Scotland.

Alex Fergusson reminded us that transport is set to be the biggest emitter by 2015. Our committee report identifies that no progress has been made in reducing or even maintaining the level of emissions from transport. Transport emissions will be a huge problem. I say to John Swinney and other members that hard political choices will have to be made. Those who want to spend £600 million on making the A9 a dual carriageway must realise that that money will have to come out of investment in other projects, such as rail infrastructure development. That will have an impact on climate change. When we make such decisions, we must be conscious of what the impact will be.

We must adopt interim traffic reduction targets. I was bitterly disappointed that, as Chris Ballance reminded us, the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 did not include such targets. We look to the minister to ensure that we take action in that area. I am also disappointed that Sarah Boyack has been the only member who has mentioned congestion charging. Congestion charging is a key area that the report recommends should be addressed. We desperately need political leadership from all parties on the issue if we are to reduce our emissions from transport. Why is it just left to Sarah Boyack? Why do ministers not argue for action on congestion charging?

Two surprises came out of the committee's report. First, business is reducing its emissions. That is important, as it shows that business efficiency equals environmental efficiency. Secondly, it is clear that land use is a problem, as we are getting CO2 emissions from our soil. Many members have talked about the role of land management contracts. They are a lever for the minister and he should go away and act on that. Rosemary Byrne also talked about the role of forestry, which is vital.

In conclusion, I say to every member, from the First Minister to my colleagues in the Green party, that if we cannot find a way to stop climate change—if the issue is continually kicked into the long grass—and if we fail to prioritise this crisis above all others, then, when the unimaginable impacts of climate change become our grandchildren's reality, the very democratic system on which the Parliament is built will begin to crumble. It will crumble because democracy will have manifestly failed the people and the planet. Do not let that be our legacy to them—act on this report now.