Official Report 443KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-00434, in the name of Gillian Martin, on meeting the challenge of climate change. I will give members on the front benches the opportunity to change seats. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button.
15:36
I am pleased to open this afternoon’s debate on meeting the challenges of climate change. Despite the majority of people in Scotland recognising that climate change is an immediate and urgent problem, we are witnessing a concerning rise in anti-climate rhetoric from those who seek to sow division.
I am proud that Scotland continues to stand firm in our commitment to tackle the twin crises of climate change and nature loss, the impacts of which are already evident across Scotland and, indeed, the world. We know that those crises will intensify and be the cause of potential incidents that will directly affect our citizens, so we must increase our climate resilience. We also know that action must accelerate to deliver our statutory emissions reductions targets and because we have such a moral obligation to decarbonise as fast as possible.
I therefore confirm that I will support Claire Baker’s amendment from the Labour benches. However, I must clarify that that is on the basis that the “interim targets” that are referenced in the Labour amendment refer to the now statutory carbon budget approach to reach net zero by 2045, given that there are no longer interim targets in legislation.
I stress that accelerating the pace of change will not be easy—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Yes.
I am happy to confirm that the amendment refers to carbon budgeting and the changes that we have made to the five-year targets.
I thank Claire Baker for that confirmation—it is very helpful, because I wanted to support the content of the amendment, but there was just an issue with wording. I am pleased to be able to confirm that we will vote for the Labour amendment.
The pace of change will not be easy, and it will be achievable only if those of us who believe in climate change work together instead of offering opposition for opposition’s sake, which has regrettably been all too common in previous parliamentary sessions. The people we represent expect better. Yes, they expect disagreement and debate, but, above all, they expect and want collaboration, action and progress.
I am prepared to deliver that with willing colleagues, and we are making progress. For example, this year, we have significantly exceeded our programme for government target on peatland restoration, with 15,448 hectares having been restored. We have also committed £110 million to peatland restoration over the next four years, which will give the sector certainty and realise the potential of jobs growth.
Alongside the necessary accelerated action, we will also continue to set out more detail on delivery planning. I intend to convene a cross-Government delivery group on climate action to support that and strengthen delivery monitoring across the whole of Government.
Delivering climate action means investing in our economic future and improving the lives of our citizens. Scotland is blessed with vast natural resources, creative communities and businesses and exceptional people. That gives us a huge competitive advantage to seize the opportunities of the industries of the future. The transition that is already under way is not only our path to decarbonisation; it is central to our industrial resilience and our long-term competitiveness as a country. However, we will succeed in achieving that only if we deliver a fair and just transition.
A recent Confederation of British Industry report shows the lead that Scotland has over the rest of the United Kingdom, with net zero-related activity contributing a total of £10.2 billion to Scotland’s economy and supporting more than 105,000 jobs. For every £1 of direct economic value that is generated in the sector, a further £1.75 is supported across the wider Scottish economy.
Households and businesses will also see direct financial benefits from the switch to, for example, electric vehicles, including the electrification of heavy goods vehicles. That will mean lower operating and maintenance costs across the economy, as well as reduced vulnerability to fluctuations in fossil fuel prices—shocks can be caused by geopolitical events, as we have seen particularly this year.
This Government’s significant investments in concessionary public transport are also making it easier and more affordable to switch. In addition, our £2 bus fare cap is now active across the Highlands and Islands, supporting rural connectivity and tourism. The Scottish National Party Government will go even further, putting in place the £2 bus fare cap across the whole of Scotland by the end of this session of Parliament.
Climate action is improving the quality of our lives. Active travel not only reduces emissions but increases physical activity and the health benefits that come from that. The switch to EVs means clearer air, which reduces our risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, meaning long-term and significant health budget savings.
The Edinburgh Climate Change Institute estimates that those co-benefits are worth £1,450 per person over the 15-year period of the new climate change plan, not least by reducing pressure on our national health service. That figure does not even include the £42 billion of financial benefits that are directly attributable to the plan up to 2040.
Climate action is now at the heart of Scotland’s economy, our public health and our wider society. Let us drill down into particular areas of Scotland. The CBI report demonstrates that climate action is driving the economy of Aberdeen—my home city and Europe’s energy capital—as well as that of Perth and Kinross, where the sector supports 12 per cent of gross value added.
In fact, 19 of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas have more than three times more net zero businesses than the UK average, compared with the overall number of businesses in their area. That includes North Lanarkshire, where there are 8.8 times more than the UK average. Net zero activity in Glasgow and Edinburgh together support £3.8 billion in GVA, when the wider supply chain and spillover effects are included.
The net zero economy is the economy. The bedrock of this trend is our small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up about 90 per cent of the companies in the green sector.
Let us now look at the impacts of climate change in Scotland as we are feeling them. From wildfires to flooding to coastal erosion, we know that climate change is causing more serious and more unpredictable impacts across the whole of Scotland. These trends are getting worse and they threaten our livelihoods and the safety of our communities. They risk damage to our homes, our landscapes, our businesses and our infrastructure. Insurance becomes more difficult to obtain and afford for families and businesses. Once an event has happened, the premiums go up—if people ever had insurance in the first place. I will not be the only MSP who, in the event of a flood, has had to visit people in households who did not have insurance at all and are devastated.
The Climate Change Committee is clear that the effects of climate change are costing Scotland billions of pounds a year. That is only likely to increase if we do not take the necessary action to reduce our emissions and adapt to the impacts that are already with us.
Unfortunately, this sounds like the usual broken record, with the Scottish Government cherry-picking statistics. If everything is so good, why has the Climate Change Committee suggested that we should plant 18,000 hectares of trees, whereas the Scottish Government has reduced its goal to 10,000 hectares? Perhaps the cabinet secretary could update the chamber on how many hectares of trees were planted in 2024-25.
I would be happy to give Finlay Carson that molecular detail after this debate. I am not cherry-picking particular aspects but instead going through some of the areas in which there has been a great deal of progress. I am also outlining where we need to go further.
I do not think that characterising what I have been saying as “a broken record” is conducive to the collaborative relationship that I want to have with the Conservative members, particularly given that there are so many new members who perhaps are not with the agenda on this issue and do not see the benefits of it.
I was talking about adaptation. Professor Graeme Roy of the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said that
“not responding to the challenge of climate change ... will be far more expensive and damaging to the public finances than investing in net zero ... it is simply not an option.”
That is the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s position.
Our third Scottish national adaptation plan is our blueprint to build resilience to climate change in a way that is fair and equitable but which can also potentially save millions of pounds by preventing damage. Collaboration is at its heart, including collaboration with local government.
As I have said, our climate change plan is accelerating the rollout of EV chargers. We have delivered nearly £4 million of grant funding to 120 organisations specifically to support the installation of 250 charge points in rural and island locations. We have introduced the rural and island infrastructure fund and have more than doubled it to £10 million to enable the expansion of that infrastructure.
The bridge between climate mitigation and adaptation is also built by the restoration of our natural environment. We know that climate regulates nature, and nature regulates climate—they are inseparable and symbiotic. Today, I announced new funding of nearly £1 million for the Forth, Clyde, Fife and Lothians climate forests. That will not only contribute to our woodland creation targets—which Mr Carson was exercised about—but provide green spaces, flood resilience and opportunities for our people, particularly in urban environments, where we need to improve neighbourhoods and give children, in particular, access to nature. The funding will also help us to reach our plans to increase woodland cover to 23 per cent by 2040.
Yesterday, I visited Duloch Park and Calais Muir Woods, which are part of the Fife climate forests, where I met local partners and community groups. I saw at first hand how they are working together to boost the number of trees in Fife and improve access to high-quality, vibrant green spaces that produce thriving, resilient places for people as well as nature, mitigate flooding and give families places to carry out leisure activities. Those groups also plant community gardens to provide food and often turn derelict wasteland into beautiful, safe spaces that make areas more pleasant to live in and bring people together. We are also committed to working with the Scottish outdoor recreation alliance and others to develop a Scottish paths fund and produce new guidance for access authorities on how to fulfil their responsibilities.
We have invested more than £75 million in the nature restoration fund for a huge amount of diverse projects, supporting the planting of 300,000 trees and protecting 216km of habitat. The nature restoration fund is not just restoring Scotland’s nature; it is also strengthening the economy. It is supporting projects that create jobs, develop skills and attract additional private investment. More than £7 million has so far been leveraged in match funding from the private sector.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will in a second.
Those projects also help to reduce future spending on issues such as flooding and wildfires, and to build long-term resilience to climate change and its impacts. I will say that again: more than £7 million has been leveraged as a result of the funding of the nature restoration fund.
I am enjoying much of what the cabinet secretary is laying out in her speech. However, she has not mentioned the industrial decline in Scotland and the need to get a just transition for workers in Mossmorran and at other sites, such as Dunbar and Grangemouth, where we need to see an industrial future but also to take investors and workers with us. Can she say more about what the Government is doing to lead on the just transition, rather than leaving it to markets and corporates to determine the future, which often means that they just leave Scotland?
I do not believe that we are leaving it to corporates. We are using our funding to leverage an investment from companies to make that money work harder. The just transition fund in the north-east is one example; Stephen Gethins now has responsibility for that fund. I will not mention specific incidents in that space, but I have mentioned the just transition in making the broader point that we have to seize the opportunities that are there with climate action, which will create jobs. We need to accelerate that action, because as we do so, we will build market certainty and create new markets that will provide new jobs and boost businesses. I think that I have made quite a lot of mention of the amount of GVA that it is bringing to Scotland.
We have also committed £350 million to more than 3,400 businesses through the agri-environment climate scheme, which will help farmers and crofters to embed climate adaptation and resilience into their land management, helping to maintain the long-term capacity of our land to produce the food that we need and to sustain the businesses that produce it.
I have more to say, but I believe that I am running out of time, so I will end on this note. We will not allow continued deindustrialisation to create new scars in our community. Mark Ruskell was right to point out that we need a just transition, as we do not want to replicate the mistakes of the 1980s. However, we need action on electricity prices. There is not much of a silver bullet available to people in policy, but if there is one thing that I would ask for that would unlock so much more, particularly in the just transition space and in relation to some emissions reduction measures so that more people could adopt them in their own homes, it would be for action on the cost of electricity. We must see that cost come down and decoupled from gas. Interventions such as that would see us not just meet our targets but potentially exceed them.
Although I will accept the Labour amendment, it is deeply disappointing that the amendment from Reform reiterates its denial of climate change as a real and pressing issue. I hope to be able to talk some sense into Reform members over the next few years, because, as I hope that I have laid out, there are economic benefits associated with climate action. This is not a cost; it is a cost benefit.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that climate change constitutes an emergency; supports the goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius; notes the consequences of climate change that are currently impacting populations and places around the world; condemns any spread of misinformation about and denial of the impacts of climate change that undermine the evidence base; reaffirms Scotland’s commitment to delivering ambitious climate action and achieving net zero by 2045, in line with its statutory carbon budget targets; agrees on the need to enhance Scotland’s climate resilience and adaptation efforts to safeguard people, communities, public services and ecosystems from the impacts of climate change; welcomes the transformative opportunities presented by climate action, including significant economic, social, environmental and public health benefits, and acknowledges that delivery of the transition must be fair and inclusive for all.
I call Claire Baker to speak to and move amendment S7M-00434.2.
15:51
We need to be clear that climate change is an emergency that affects communities across the world and increasingly here in Scotland. We are seeing more extreme weather events, increased flooding, risks to biodiversity, pressures on food production, and growing risks to public health and infrastructure. Climate change does not stop just because some people do not believe in it. The scientific evidence is clear, the need for action is urgent and the responsibility of Government to deliver is undeniable.
Members in successive sessions of the Scottish Parliament have recognised that reality and, although delivery has sometimes fallen short, the need to act has largely been accepted. In returning to the environment brief after around 10 years, I am struck by the extent to which the political consensus on climate action appears to be weakening. That should concern us all. The challenge cannot be whether we agree on the destination; it must be whether we are making enough progress to get there. If Governments repeatedly set ambitious targets but fail to demonstrate progress, people inevitably begin to question whether change is really happening. We cannot allow frustration with delivery to become an argument against action.
Does the member agree, however, that the issue is not just for Government, and that there has to be a determination, in a coalition of the willing in Parliament and in wider society, to reach the targets?
I agree with that to an extent, but Government has the levers and is there to provide leadership and the drive to make things happen. As I have made clear, collectively across the Parliament, we have agreed that we need to make progress on the targets, which are also legally binding by an agreement made here, and the committees have an important role to play. However, ultimately, the Government has to show leadership on the issue.
Scotland does not have a shortage of climate targets; we have a shortage of evidence that we are moving quickly enough to meet them. There remains a persistent gap between the commitments that have been made and the progress that has been delivered. Devolved policy areas are where many of the emissions reductions that we need must come from, whether they be in transport, low-carbon heat in our homes, or nature restoration. Those are all areas in which we need faster progress.
The recent emissions statement demonstrated the reality. Emissions reductions have slowed, our carbon footprint is moving in the wrong direction and, unless we increase the pace of change, we will struggle to meet future targets. The figures matter because, every year that progress slows, the scale of the challenge becomes even greater. Delaying action today simply means steeper and more difficult changes tomorrow.
The publication of the draft climate action plan at the end of last year was a missed opportunity for the Scottish Government, as it failed to provide the necessary focus on delivery. Stakeholders were looking for confidence that Scotland has a credible pathway to meeting its carbon budgets. The concern was not about ambition; it was about whether the measures that were identified were sufficient, detailed enough and, above all, capable of being implemented.
The cabinet secretary has described the plan as a road map, but a road map must show not only the destination but how we intend to get there. Scotland needs a clearer pathway towards meeting its carbon budgets, and the Parliament needs better tools to monitor progress along the way.
We have seen positive changes, including having greater scrutiny and a greater focus on carbon budgets, but there remain significant gaps in how progress will be measured and monitored. I am keen to hear more from the cabinet secretary about the priority actions that have been taken forward, how progress will be reported to the Parliament and how the cross-Government group referenced in the emissions statement will help to deliver change. She referred to some of that in her opening remarks, but I look forward to hearing more detail. Scrutiny is not an obstacle to climate action; it is essential to it.
We recognise that responsibility for taking action on climate change is shared across individuals, communities, private companies, the public sector and others, as well as the Government. However, as I said earlier, the Government holds the levers of power. For local authorities, households and communities to help drive the transition, they need proper support to do so. For many families, climate policy is not about having an abstract discussion about emissions; it concerns whether they can afford to heat their homes, whether their home is energy efficient and whether they can reduce their energy bills. People want warmer homes, lower bills and cleaner energy, but too many households still face barriers when it comes to improving energy efficiency or installing low-carbon technologies. Improving energy efficiency should be one of the most effective ways to reduce emissions, tackle fuel poverty and lower household bills, yet progress on retrofitting Scotland’s housing stock remains too slow and too many households are still waiting for practical support. We also need to explore how technologies such as solar power, battery storage and heat pumps can work together to decarbonise homes while helping families to manage energy costs.
Domestic transport, which remains our largest source of emissions, is a clear example of the gap between ambition and delivery. Last year, the Scottish Government scrapped its own target to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030, because it had failed to put in place the policies necessary to achieve that. Although there has been expansion and investment in electric vehicle infrastructure, it seems that we increasingly rely on the switch from petrol and diesel to EVs, instead of delivering a wider transformation of our transport system.
I make this intervention in the spirit of wanting to work together. One of the issues has been the UK Government’s decision to tax EV drivers per mile. Does the member not see that as a retrograde step when we want more people to access EVs?
My understanding is that a consultation on that decision has just closed. Some of the pressure comes from the costs that we have put on rural transport and on people who live in rural areas, but we recognise that rural car ownership is always more expensive. If people do not have alternatives to using their cars, we need to invest more in public transport and ensure that they have such alternatives so that we can deliver modal shifts. Although EVs are part of the solution, they have to sit alongside public transport, and too many people in Scotland do not have access to a network that meets their needs.
People understand the need to reduce transport emissions, but they also know that if a bus does not turn up, if the train is still too expensive or if there is no public transport option at all, they will continue to rely on their cars. That is why we need genuine alternatives: reliable public transport, better bus services, improved rail connectivity and safer active travel routes. The reintroduction of off-peak fares was welcome in helping to tackle the cost of rail travel, but the Government’s own analysis suggested that it did not deliver the significant modal shift that had been hoped for. Achieving that shift remains one of the biggest transport challenges that we face.
Climate action must also work for rural Scotland. Our farmers and crofters already experience the impacts of climate change, including increasing uncertainty around production, and are essential partners in this transition. Although we have seen emissions from agriculture reduce over recent decades, much of that reduction has coincided with declining livestock numbers. We agree that meeting agricultural emissions targets cannot rely on simply reducing livestock numbers. Farmers need support to adopt new technologies and lower-carbon practices while being able to maintain a thriving food-producing sector.
Does Claire Baker accept that the Scottish Government and this Parliament have made the necessary injections of cash into agriculture by ensuring that we continue with direct payments, continue voluntary coupled support—
You cut the budget.
—and continue to have a ring fenced fund for cattle production in this country while, in England, the policies introduced by the Tories and continued by the Labour Party have decimated agriculture there?
I do not agree with that analysis, which does not recognise the reality that farmers are dealing with. When I met NFU Scotland this week, it called for clarity on the money that the Scottish Government will provide.
It has clarity.
Members must not interrupt.
We agree with maintaining livestock numbers—although the numbers have come down because of market forces—but the funding framework must support the transformation that we need in farming. If we look at how things have been set up in England and Wales, we see that the money that is distributed to farmers is more clearly linked to the transformation that we need in farming practices.
I assume that Claire Baker is comfortable with the fact that, down in England, a payment under the basic payment scheme used to be worth £40,000 but its replacement is now worth £600. Is that the right way to give farmers certainty?
I have made it clear that farming and agriculture are important sectors, as the highest emissions in Scotland come from agriculture, transport, housing and buildings, but the Government does not seem to be setting out how it could support the agriculture sector to make the shift. The minister talked about supporting the sector, but he did not talk about the subject of the debate, which is how we should deal with such emissions.
As I said, we would not reduce livestock numbers—although numbers are already coming down because of market forces—but what should we do? We need to consider the funding network and ensure that we work with farmers. We should use the potential that we have to encourage and incentivise low-carbon farming and greening practices through the payments system. The minister seems to be quite excited by the fact that I am saying that, as though it is not something that the Government supports, but my understanding is that the Government does support reducing emissions in the agriculture sector, and I would like a clearer idea of how it plans to do that.
Scotland’s natural environment is one of its greatest assets, but biodiversity continues to decline and many species and habitats remain under pressure. Nature restoration is a key part of our response to climate change. Healthy ecosystems help to store carbon, improve resilience to extreme weather and support sustainable economic activity. However, there are questions about whether our ambition is translating into projects on the ground. Communities, land managers and environmental organisations need certainty on support and investment, alongside clear targets for nature restoration.
The same applies to the marine environment. Our seas support biodiversity, sustain coastal communities and have an important role in carbon storage. However, protecting marine ecosystems requires effective management, robust monitoring and meaningful engagement with those whose livelihoods depend on our seas.
Deputy Presiding Officer, given that I have accepted a number of interventions, am I able to continue?
You should be winding up, so I recommend that you do not take any more interventions and that you move to your closing remarks.
I was going to say something about tree planting. The cabinet secretary’s announcement on climate forests is welcome, but we could do more in that area.
We know that the transition to net zero presents huge opportunities for Scotland, and we have the natural resources and ability to deliver that transformation. Alongside opportunity, we need leadership and delivery, with the Government providing clear and credible plans for implementation. Ambition alone will not reduce emissions. Targets alone will not restore nature. We need faster progress on decarbonising transport, improving the energy efficiency of our homes, supporting communities and businesses through the transition and restoring our natural environment.
I move amendment S7M-00434.2, to insert at end:
“; recognises that, in order to meet the 2030 targets and beyond, the pace of change has to accelerate, acknowledging that, if pace continues at the current rate, targets will be missed; calls on the Scottish Government to publish detailed plans on how it will meet interim targets, and further calls on the Scottish Government to move at pace to bring forward retrofitting and other measures to tackle fuel poverty and help Scotland reach its climate targets.”
16:03
Let me begin with a simple but important distinction. Global warming is real and a problem, but it is not an emergency. That distinction matters, because it shapes how we respond. Make no mistake: our current policies are failing. They are disproportionate and unilateral, are causing the closure of industries and are driving huge energy bills while having zero effect on global emissions. In Scotland, most obviously, such policies have driven the closures of the Grangemouth refinery and the Mossmorran plant, and they are causing huge damage to our North Sea oil and gas industry.
The distinction also matters because emotive terms such as “emergency” and “crisis” are simply not supported by the science.
Will Duncan Massey take an intervention on that point?
No, because I am about to make my argument.
Members do not need to take interventions.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has quietly removed its RCP—representative concentration pathway—8.5 scenario, which once again highlights that the scientific consensus is that there is slow and mild warming, with the mid-term estimate being another 1°C to 1.5°C increase by the end of the century.
What are the real impacts of that warming? Again, the IPCC sees the likely emergence of more heatwaves, but it does not see a climate change signal for river floods, heavy rainfall, drought of all types, severe wind storms or tropical storms.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Yes.
I gently point out to the member that, in my constituency, I watched people being evacuated from their homes by boat because of severe rainstorms and severe river flooding. Does he accept that that is the reality of climate change that we are facing right now?
I reiterate the science—the IPCC does not see that as a trend.
It is happening now.
The IPCC does not see it as a trend—that is the science. Quite often, when we look at individual events, we see that there has been a failure to dredge rivers, or building on flood plains, and all those factors contribute strongly.
The IPCC also does not currently attribute wildfire occurrence to climate change. It sees an increase in dry and simultaneously windy weather that can influence wildfire, but it highlights that wildfires are more dependent on land use and nearby human activity to provide ignition and fuel. The Dava moor fire is a case in point. The fire was started by a flare during a coastguard exercise. Although there was extremely dry weather, it was exacerbated by an increase in fuel as a result of fewer controlled burns, and of land use changes that resulted in fewer firebreaks and fewer gamekeepers being available to fight the incident.
The facts are that the Dava wildfire went through every landscape—it did not matter whether it was forestry, wetland, peatland or managed land—so it is simply not correct to say that the only reason for the scale of the Dava fire was that the land had not been managed.
It was certainly contributory.
Again, let us be science based and fact based about the problem, and let us acknowledge that climate change sits alongside other problems such as lack of growth, lack of jobs and the cost of living crisis. Unfortunately, our policies have made those problems interconnected. We need to ensure that our responses are pragmatic and long term and that our policies are focused on the needs of people rather than on arbitrary emissions targets.
Let us be clear: our current net zero policies are not working, and they are not proportionate. First, they are not having any actual impact. Scotland’s annual emissions are 0.08 per cent of global emissions, or about one day of Chinese emissions. As the Scottish Government’s own data has shown, our emissions have been flat since 2020, with no decline despite huge amounts of taxpayers’ money having been thrown at the problem.
Secondly, those net zero policies are driving huge costs that are deindustrialising the whole country and driving up our energy bills.
It is important to point out that the facts and the data show that Scotland’s emissions have halved since 1990 as a result of climate action. I also refer to the GVA that I mentioned in my speech—while emissions have dropped, productivity has gone up.
Emissions fell after 1990 as a result of our moving to gas, away from coal. The cabinet secretary can look up her own chart in her own report—our emissions over the past five years have been flat.
To come to the point about GVA, I think that the analysis in the CBI Scotland report is mistaken, because the costs of current policies are driving a fragile energy system with some of the most expensive energy in the world. Industrial energy costs here are double those of the US and four times those of China; we have nearly lost our primary steel industry; our chemical, pharmaceuticals and ceramics industries are all being hammered; our oil and gas industry is being closed down; we no longer produce our own fertiliser; and, across the board, manufacturing is uncompetitive as a result of those high costs.
It is all the more futile when we recognise that those materials are still produced, just not in Scotland. They are produced abroad and then imported with far higher emissions.
Of course, there are jobs in renewables, which I welcome. However, I think that the CBI report overstates the number of jobs, because it includes jobs in many industries such as waste, water, utilities and forestry, and people in advocacy groups. The number of actual jobs associated with renewables in Scotland is around 16,000—that figure is from the Office for National Statistics.
It is not—
It is.
It is not just renewables—
The cabinet secretary should not interrupt from a sedentary position.
Those jobs are not necessarily in the areas that are affected by industrial closures, and they are certainly not in the same numbers. Renewables all depend on massive subsidies, which end up on people’s bills.
There is another uncomfortable truth: some of the policies that we are pursuing do massive environmental harm.
There is no industry more subsidised than the nuclear industry, despite what Duncan Massey seems to be suggesting. Historically, subsidy for nuclear far outstretches what has gone into renewables.
I do not recognise that. The contracts for difference scheme that is driving renewables is extremely high in cost.
The supply chain for basic metals and rare earths is hugely polluting.
Will Duncan Massey take an intervention?
No, thank you—I would like to move on with my speech.
The member has already moved into additional time, so he will not be able to take interventions.
The Berwick Bank wind farm is expected to kill tens of thousands of birds, but, apparently, that is not a problem, and it was rushed through in the name of stopping climate change.
All this is happening in a world that is changing rapidly. We are in a new geopolitical era for the major powers—the United States, China and an emerging India. It is an era in which conflict might well re-emerge and in which artificial intelligence is emerging as the key technology. What do all those things need? They need energy. Reliable, cheap and abundant energy is what success in this new world will require. That means balancing choices and making sensible decisions. It means that we must maximise our domestic oil and gas resources in the short to medium term. It means planning for the long term by investing in reliable, large-scale solutions such as nuclear, with renewables playing an important but complementary role. That is how we will secure cheap energy for everyone; protect and add to our industrial base; protect our world-leading oil and gas industry and downstream petrochemicals industry; and keep the lights on for Scotland’s future while we reduce carbon emissions over the long term in a pragmatic, sensible and proportionate way.
I move amendment S7M-00434.4, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:
“believes that there are significant risks to the economy from over-reacting and declaring an imminent emergency which is not underpinned by scientific data; notes that Scotland is facing an economic growth challenge and that current net zero policies are contributing to unsustainable cost increases and expensive energy, which are in turn contributing to deindustrialisation, the loss of jobs and an increase to the cost of living; agrees that Scotland needs pragmatic, sensible and proportionate policies that balance the economy and achieve cheap and abundant energy with long-term reduction of emissions, and resolves that Scotland must maximise its North Sea oil and gas resources in the short to medium term, whilst planning for the long term by investing in reliable, large-scale solutions such as nuclear power, with renewables continuing to play an important but complementary role.”
16:12
Climate change is the biggest crisis—and the biggest opportunity—that we have now and in the future. To be honest, having listened to the previous speech, I do not want to get drawn into a scientifically illiterate debate about whether climate change is real. We had that debate 25 years ago. The question now is about how we move forward and how we act to protect the economy, people and the environment.
Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention?
No.
The first half of our journey to net zero in Scotland has brought big benefits, with a revolution in renewable energy that has stripped fossil fuels out of our electricity supply and brought a strong degree of energy security. However, there have also been challenges. Transition has often been unplanned, and economic and community benefits have not reached their full potential. The next half of the journey must be better and fairer: workers and communities must be taken on the journey, and we must protect people from cost of living shocks while delivering benefits for our health and our environment that make sense in their own right.
There has certainly been a right-wing media tirade against climate action, with 70 per cent of recent articles on climate framed negatively, but it would be wrong to assume that public opinion has turned against climate action. A study that was commissioned by the Institute for Public Policy Research a couple of months ago showed that 62 per cent of the UK public back strong climate action, and individual policies such as traffic reduction measures, frequent flyer taxes and low-carbon home heating remain popular. The same study showed that 54 per cent of people believe that the best way to secure energy security is to expand renewable energy, not to double down on oil and gas production.
Despite what some politicians might dream of, we cannot wind the clock back to the 1970s. The trajectory, with or without new fields such as Rosebank, is decline. Transition must accelerate to protect jobs from a cliff edge and to protect our energy security.
There is clearly a gulf between what politicians believe is public opinion and what it really is. I was slightly taken aback by Claire Baker’s comment at the beginning of her speech, when she seemed to make the point that the consensus among the public for climate action has gone away. I do not think that it has. It is political caution that will leave us more vulnerable to climate change.
I do not want to be misrepresented. I have evidence that the public strongly support climate action, but the general discourse around climate has become far more divisive since I last had this portfolio. Certain voices are amplified through social media channels in particular, which may overstate their views and make them seem more than they are, but I accept that the public are largely in favour of action in the area.
That is good to hear, because we must begin this session of the Scottish Parliament with a degree of consensus. The point that I am making is that the fact that the media are effectively driving climate change denial is a real concern, because there is really strong public support for the solutions that work.
There is a real risk that political caution will leave us more vulnerable to climate change while failing to secure the benefits of action for people and for the economy. The Holyrood Government really needs to listen to what the electorate told it during the elections, when those who are aged under 30 voted overwhelmingly for the Scottish Green Party—a party that puts climate action first. That is why there is a record number of Green MSPs, why the former First Minister’s constituency is now a Green seat and why, for the first time, there is Green representation in every region of Scotland.
That generation is the future of Scotland and of our politics, and it is a generation that cares about what is coming in 2050. If political parties also want to have a future, they need to listen, because the members of that generation see the worsening extremes of weather, the displacement of people around the world and the wars that are coming due to shortages of water, food and oil, and they are anxious about what kind of world they will raise their own children in. They are also hungry for the opportunities and new jobs that can come from engineering a better future and from having a wellbeing economy that reinvests wealth in community, caring and nature. That generation of young people is also the first whose prospects look worse than those of the generation that came before, so it is no wonder that they are angry and disheartened. They have heard so many promises, but they have been let down time and time again. They deserve so much better.
I have stood here countless times and reminded the Government of the challenges that we face. I have said that we are behind on delivering climate action and will face a desperate race to catch up in the decades ahead. I have said that hitching our hopes to unproven technology such as carbon capture and storage is a huge gamble because, if those technologies do not materialise, sectors such as land use and transport will face more pressure to reduce emissions even faster. I have also said that ignoring simple programmes to make homes cosier and cheaper or to radically improve our public transport represents a real missed opportunity. We have made some progress, but the Government must show that it is ready for the challenges of 2050, rather than for those of 2007.
If that does not happen, failure will come at a high cost. We cannot cut ourselves off from the impacts of global climate change, as Reform would want us to do, just as we cannot opt out of global action by pretending that Scotland does not have huge advantages over other countries when it comes to reducing emissions. In a world where every country will face challenges, it is no advantage at all for Scotland to be in the slow lane, but there is every advantage in being among the first movers.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s focus on delivery in this session, because we have spent too long debating targets without taking action. The climate change plan sets out a pathway, but it does not commit to detailed programmes that can be felt positively by everybody. Success or failure will come down to the political will of the whole Government to lead and to support sectors to deliver. It will need every cabinet secretary not just to mention climate change from time to time in speeches but to climate proof every budget and programme, to prioritise long-term thinking and to take risks.
If the Government does that, it will have a majority for climate action here in the Parliament, along with the Scottish Greens. If it does not, it will be letting down future generations and they will suffer the consequences.
I move amendment S7M-00434.3, to insert at end:
“; recognises that, despite a media backlash, a majority of the public continues to back strong climate action, especially young people; further recognises that local communities and workers must have a meaningful participatory role in developing and implementing local climate action, with the costs spread fairly across society; recognises that the latest Scottish Greenhouse Gas statistics indicate that progress to reduce emissions has flatlined in key sectors including agriculture, buildings and transport; believes that there must be no drilling of new fossil fuels reserves, in line with advice from the International Energy Agency; considers the Scottish Government’s Climate Change Plan to be undermined by a significant reliance on as-yet unproven technological solutions, including carbon capture and storage, and that the Scottish Government must develop an alternative pathway to meeting its net zero targets.”
16:19
We all recognise the reality and impacts of climate change. Emissions must fall, Scotland must improve climate resilience and we must protect our natural environment, so we support an affordable transition to net zero. However, if this Parliament is serious about climate change, this Government must be serious about delivery, because a target never planted a tree, a press release never restored a peatland and a slogan never protected a rural job.
Rural communities need certainty and not more delay, and that is the problem. Ambitious targets are set, then missed and revised, and confidence is lost. Our amendment recognises Scotland’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2045, but it also recognises what ministers too often avoid: that meeting that target will require major changes across the economy. Public confidence depends on credible targets, achievable plans and honesty about trade-offs, yet that is missing.
I have said a few times now, both in the chamber and in the meetings that I have been having with colleagues, that I want to work with members as much as possible. What policy in the Conservative manifesto would have brought emissions down? What policy in it can we work together on?
If the cabinet secretary listens when I get to the end of my speech, she will hear some of the suggestions that we included in our manifesto.
Such criticism is coming not just from the Conservative benches. The previous session’s Rural Affairs and Islands Committee heard it clearly from stakeholders, who spoke of a gap between ambition and the reality and warned that delivery has been too slow and that confidence across the sector has been eroded. Regarding the target, Professor Dave Reay told the committee:
“Without a rural support plan, actual policies or a budget in place, it is really hard to see how that will be delivered.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 14 January 2026; c 38.]
That sums up the problem perfectly.
We have ambition without delivery, and we see that gap in sector after sector. We see it in forestry, where woodland creation is now falling short of even the reduced targets, following significant cuts in the support scheme. Forestry does not operate to a political timescale but works over decades, yet as a consequence of uncertainty about funding and direction, fewer trees are being planted and there is less confidence across the sector. The decision to cut the forestry grant scheme by 40 per cent has had consequences. Scottish Forestry figures show that fewer than 8,500 hectares of new woodland were created in 2024-25, which was short of the reduced 10,000 hectare goal and far short of the 18,000 hectares in the climate change plan.
We see the same thing in peatland restoration. The ambition is welcome, but questions remain about whether delivery matches the scale that is required. The committee heard concerns about the narrow, carbon-driven approach in which there is a laser focus on the most degraded sites while wider peatland conditions are overlooked. In responding to the climate change plan, witnesses warned that the right balance has not yet been struck between short-term emissions and long-term sustainable restoration.
Given the points that the member has made about peatland restoration, does he welcome the fact that we have exceeded the peatland restoration targets for this year?
Yes, but the minister maybe missed my point. Beyond a laser focus on restoration we must consider the wider implications, where the gains can be made and whether we are doing enough. That view came from the peatland restoration experts.
Within agriculture, farmers and crofters need clarity and certainty so that they can plan for the future. Let me be clear that farmers and crofters are not obstacles to climate action but are essential to it. They manage the land, support biodiversity and produce the food that underpins our national resilience, but they cannot deliver change if policy is unclear and support is uncertain. There is a growing perception that active farming is being sidelined.
Will the member give way?
I need to make progress.
The rural support plan was meant to provide that clarity. Instead, it has raised further questions. Funding pressures, reduced capital support and a lack of long-term certainty have left many in the sector unsure about what comes next, and that matters not just for climate policy but for food security. We must be honest—we cannot rely on declining domestic production and increasing imports to make our emissions figures look better on paper. That is not climate leadership; it is climate displacement, which involves exporting our emissions while importing food from elsewhere, often with higher carbon costs.
I am not quite sure what the member is talking about with regard to declining production in this country. We are still producing plenty of food in this country. He also said that there has not been certainty, but there is a guarantee of certainty between now and 2030, and work is ongoing to ensure that we continue with direct payments. Where does the member think that there is not certainty? The industry, which we have just heard from for two days at the Royal Highland Show, is telling us that it is very comfortable with the Scottish Government’s direction of travel.
The minister must have been speaking to different farmers. The problem is, we know that action needs to be taken but the Government keeps kicking the hard decisions into the long grass. There is no certainty, and there is a reducing budget.
The same credibility gap that we have just heard from the minister’s response exists when it comes to technology and implementation. The climate change plan talked about new machinery, alternative fuels and rapid technological change, but we heard clear evidence about the cost barriers involved, whether those are in respect of low-emission equipment or emerging technologies that are simply not viable or available at scale. The Government cannot mandate its way past affordability, or build a credible plan on the assumptions that technology will arrive on time, on budget and at scale, without proper support.
We must take a more honest and balanced approach to our natural environment. Land management matters. Prevention matters. Those who work in our countryside, such as farmers, gamekeepers, land managers and rural businesses, play a vital role, but, too often, they feel ignored in decision making or—worse—treated with suspicion. Policies that are imposed without proper engagement risk undermining the very outcomes that they seek to achieve. A just transition takes people with it rather than leaving them behind.
Nowhere is the need for honesty clearer than in energy policy. A managed transition to net zero must recognise the continuing role of oil and gas. That is not just a political point but an economic and practical reality. North Sea oil and gas supports tens of thousands of skilled jobs, underpins our energy security and provides a domestic supply with a higher environmental standard than any imports. Turning our backs on that resource prematurely will not reduce global demand but will simply mean importing more energy—often, with a higher carbon footprint—while exporting jobs and weakening our economy. That is not a just transition.
The member must conclude.
A credible approach must be combined with investment in renewables and a realistic understanding of current energy needs. This debate is about credibility, because people will support the transition to net zero only if they believe that it is fair, achievable and grounded in reality.
I move amendment S7M-00434.5, to leave out from “that climate change” to end and insert:
“the reality and impacts of climate change and supports an affordable transition to net zero; understands that Scotland is committed to reaching net zero by 2045; raises significant concern over the findings of the Climate Change Committee that meeting this target will require significant and far-reaching changes across the economy, including major reductions in domestic oil and gas production, substantial changes in agriculture and livestock numbers, rapid acceleration in the uptake of electric vehicles and the expensive mass installation of heat pumps in homes across the country; recognises that public confidence in climate policy depends on targets being credible, achievable and supported by clear delivery plans; calls on the Scottish Government to set out clearly, honestly and in full, how it plans to meet its 2045 targets, including the practical steps required, the trade-offs involved, and the real impact on jobs, households, businesses and communities; emphasises that Scotland’s transition to net zero must be grounded in economic reality, protecting jobs, strengthening energy and food security and supporting sustainable economic growth; recognises the vital contribution of Scotland’s farmers, crofters, land managers, gamekeepers, fishing industry and rural and island communities in protecting the natural environment; supports the continued responsible extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea as part of a managed transition, recognising its importance to Scotland’s economy, energy security and skilled workforce, and rejects virtue signalling in favour of a practical, transparent and accountable approach to climate policy.”
16:26
In 2021, I spent a week at the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow. I sat in on hours of negotiations, and it was in one of those large, tented rooms, filled with people from all across the world, that I met Martina, who was a delegate from the Democratic Republic of Congo. She and her colleagues were exhausted from trying to keep up with rich countries and influential lobbies.
Martina was there not because she was a trained negotiator; she was a teacher, and she spoke English. English was the second language of us both, but we shared something that was far more important than a common tongue: a deep concern that the planet is warming and extreme weather is driving migration, poverty, famine and flooding on a scale that the world has not seen before.
That was five years ago, when it felt like the world was finally waking up to those threats. It feels like a long time ago, now. Meanwhile, climate change continues to wreak havoc on communities across the globe and right here at home. Whether we live in Kinshasa or Craigleith, climate change is already affecting us all. To small businesses that are flooded after torrential downpours, which are happening more often, farmers struggling with long periods of drought or coastal communities across Scotland seeing increased erosion and watching sea levels rise, climate change is not a future threat but a present reality.
There is nothing to disagree with in the Government’s motion. Climate change is an emergency. The science is unambiguous; I know, because I worked alongside climate scientists for more than a decade. The Parliament will be right to reaffirm Scotland’s commitment to net zero by 2045 and to call out the dangerous and ridiculous stance of climate change deniers—people who spread misinformation, undermine the evidence base and prioritise ideology over science. Regrettably, some of that thinking is represented in this very chamber. We will not stand for it, and neither should the Parliament.
However, we also owe it to the people of Scotland to be honest about where we are. Scotland set ambitious targets. For more than a decade, we missed them—not once, not twice, but eight times in 12 years. The 2030 target, which was once held up as a world-leading example of climate ambition, was quietly abandoned last year because the Scottish Government’s independent advisers said that it was no longer credible. That is not a record to be proud of. It demands accountability.
The climate change plan that was published earlier this year is a step forward, and we acknowledge that. However, significant gaps remain on decarbonising homes, transport, agriculture and industry. We need action, not aspirations.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats also believe that Scotland cannot afford to take any low-carbon technology off the table. An evidence-led approach means exactly that: following the evidence, not ideology. That is why we call on the Scottish Government to engage constructively with the UK Government on Scotland’s energy future, including the potential role of new and emerging technologies in our energy mix. Scotland’s clean energy ambitions must be built on pragmatism as much as principle, and must leave no community behind. That includes Scotland’s north-east, an area close to the cabinet secretary’s heart. The Liberal Democrats believe that the so-called just transition must be exactly that: it must be just, and it must be a transition, not a cliff edge.
The Scottish Government is rightly ambitious on climate and, where it makes genuine progress, we of course support that. That is not in question. However, to date, progress has been too slow, the targets have too often been missed, and the excuses have too readily been offered. It is all of our role, as an Opposition and as a Parliament, to hold their feet to the fire. Bold rhetoric is easy. I know that. Bold action is what the Parliament and the planet actually need.
16:31
As the recently elected convener of the Climate Action Committee, I look forward to working with colleagues from across the chamber both in scrutinising the Scottish Government but also, I hope, through the committee, in making suggestions to help Scotland deal with the climate emergency that we all face. For clarity, I am not speaking today as convener of that committee.
As some leaders trade the hope and health of future generations for short-term gains, they push back against the very idea of a climate crisis and undermine the need for urgent action. We have already heard that in the debate, and I urge the SNP Scottish Government not to yield to the climate culture wars.
Millions of people globally are impacted by climate change today, and that will also be the case for future generations, as has already been touched upon by Sanne Dijkstra-Downie. I have also heard that on numerous occasions when I have represented the Parliament at Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences, both the regional and international ones, which I will come back to in a moment.
Global warming is one of the biggest issues facing our planet, and strong leadership on the climate crisis has never been more important. Reaching net zero is a national challenge for Scotland, and it is one that we must win for a healthier climate, warmer homes, cleaner air and happier, more equitable and prosperous communities. The motion in the name of the cabinet secretary highlights those key criteria. I look forward to the contributions from MSPs in the open debate, which I am sure will help the committee’s discussions on Thursday, when we meet for the first time, and during the rest of the parliamentary session.
I will touch briefly on three items, for wider consideration.
First, there is the issue of AI data centres and their impact on the environment. A great deal has already been written about them. We all use AI—some former MSPs more than others, of course. It is not going to go back into the box. Its use is only going to increase and become more important for the economy and society. Members will be aware of the reports of plans for 24 AI data centres across the country, so we all appreciate how important the issue has become. I touched on the CPA a minute ago, and the issue of AI data centres has been raised time and again at both international and regional conferences. We are not the only people who are talking about the issue. Helpfully, it is on the agenda for this year’s festival of politics. I know that I am not allowed to use props, Presiding Officer, but I thought that I might get away with holding up this programme, as I am plugging a parliamentary event. There will, in fact, be two discussions about AI on 27 August, but one is about data centres. Dealing with climate emissions is already a massive challenge. We need to find a way to incorporate newer technologies into the economic, social and environmental policies that we manage.
Secondly, there is the issue of heat networks. It is important that they are successful in delivering the heat that we all need, but the issue of their environmental impact is also vital. District heating systems play an important role in communities up and down the country, but they come in a range of scales. Are they operating effectively? How do we create more, using efficient input, to ensure that communities can benefit from them while providing improvements for the customer and the provider?
Thirdly, there is something that is a small issue in a business context, and it might be a bit niche for some—I did not know about it until yesterday when I met up with a local business. It is an issue not just for that business, but for that particular sector across the UK. The technology that cinemas utilise is actually highly power intensive. There is technology out there that can help to improve that, but cinemas are struggling. They have not yet recovered fully from Covid, particularly when it comes to small-scale operators. That business in my constituency has one cinema in Greenock and one in Dunoon. There is a separate cinema in Falkirk that has one screen, and there are similar cinemas across the UK. Not all cinemas are part of big multinational conglomerations. That is a small example of where Government could help to move the dial somewhat.
A range of issues have already been discussed and, obviously, many more will be discussed, including the marine environment, energy generation, oil and gas extraction, agriculture, transport and construction, among others. There will be more to discuss and I am certainly looking forward to the discussions that we will have in the Climate Action Committee. However, fundamentally, we have made progress. It is difficult to get to where we need to get to, but we need to do it. The impact on us is one thing, but there is also the impact on some countries in Africa in particular. Sanne Dijkstra-Downie spoke about the Democratic Republic of Congo, but there are many others that I have heard about through the CPA. We have got a job to do.
16:36
I declare an interest, in that I am an elected councillor on Dundee City Council.
I will start my speech by stating an inconvenient truth. Climate change is real. It has been an emergency for some time and it is already affecting communities across Scotland, as we well know. If I could stop it by clicking my heels and denying it three times, I would, but that would not make it go away. It is already happening. Winters are already wetter. Summers are already drier. Storms are increasing in frequency and intensity and, unbelievably, droughts are being predicted in Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am not taking an intervention. The member got to put out a lot of misinformation earlier. I am carrying on.
The 10 warmest years on record here in Scotland have been in the past 27 years, with 2022 recorded as Scotland’s hottest year ever. 2024 was the UK’s warmest year on record and that record is likely to be broken in this session of Parliament, if not this year. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C is not a woke mantra. 1.5°C is not a target, it is a limit. If our planet warms up by more than 1.5°C, a number of tipping points are breached. Oceans are already warming faster than predicted, glaciers are melting faster than we had hoped, and the permafrost is thawing at an alarming rate.
Once those tipping points are breached, we run out of road. If we breach those tipping points, we cannot control any of it. However, we can control it now. That is why every decision that we make in this Parliament must take account of the impact that we will have on this place that we call home, on our children and on our grandchildren. Continuing to wreck the joint and saying that it is someone else’s problem is not forgivable or excusable.
Members of this chamber may know that I was a farmer, and farmers do not need to look at the data charts. Farmers live in the weather every day. Harvests were impacted by record-breaking rainfall in 2024. Every farmer knows that the loss of hard frost over winter increases disease burden in the soil. Every grower knows that the increasing unpredictability of seasons disrupts cultivation plans. I want everyone in this chamber to take a minute to understand that everything that we eat was planted or reared by a farmer somewhere. No farmers, no party. For food producers, reaching net zero is not a target, it is a necessity.
Could the member set out what she believes is a show-stopping policy that this Government has introduced in the past 10 years that has allowed farmers to move quickly towards becoming net zero?
I will be guided by the cabinet secretary, who was here in previous sessions, but the main thing is that we are trying to involve farmers in the move to net zero. We are trying to support farmers to survive and to diversify the way they rear their animals and the way they farm. We are trying to support active farming and more organic farming.
We need organisations such as the James Hutton Institute, just outside Dundee, to develop more climate-resilient plant breeds to contend with increasing unpredictability. We need to work with nature to enable us to withstand the impact of climate change that is already baked into the 1.5°C target.
This is where local authorities come in. I always say that local authorities are the fourth emergency service. Whenever there is an adverse weather event, it is the local authority that steps in to support households that have been experiencing flooding, fires or severe heat. Local authorities are also key to ensuring that communities are supported to identify risks and improve climate resilience. In Dundee, we recently updated our climate risk and vulnerability assessment, assessing the impact of a 2°C or 4°C increase in temperature on nature, infrastructure, buildings and people. It made pretty uncomfortable reading.
We have formed Climate Ready Tayside with Perth and Kinross and Angus Councils, because we understand that adverse weather events do not respect council boundaries. The group is focusing on nature-based solutions and is developing community resilience to future events. It knows that once-in-a-generation storms are now occurring on an annual basis. Storm Babet caused devastating flooding across the region, most noticeably in Brechin, but also in Dundee, where the Dighty burst its banks. Working with nature to re-meander the Dighty is now a regular topic of debate and a work in progress.
Also in Dundee, thanks to 80 per cent funding support from the Scottish Government, we have invested in the Broughty Ferry flood protection scheme. We have combined it with an amazing active travel route, sand dune restoration and wildflower meadows. Just imagine two football pitches full of wildflowers, such as viper’s bugloss, with the bees buzzing so intensely that people walking there stop still in amazement just to listen to the racket. We are protecting all those homes and businesses and getting people out walking, and the bees, bugs and beasties are loving it. That is good work. That is how we tackle climate change.
Scotland has made great progress towards meeting our net zero targets, and I trust that, with the renewed focus and the updated climate change plan, we can finish the job. The Climate Change Committee has said that we can do it, so let us get on and do it.
16:52
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a councillor in Fife and a principal hydrologist for Kiloh Associates.
I recently attended a screening of the “People’s Emergency Briefing” from a campaign that brings together leading scientists, economists, security experts and communicators to explain the risks posed by climate change and nature loss and to encourage a more honest public conversation about the scale of the challenge before us. The campaign calls on the UK Government to stage a prime-time, multichannel televised national emergency briefing to communicate the scale and immediacy of the risks that we face. The film perfectly captures the key risks around climate change, and I would encourage all members to look up the community screenings that are happening all over Scotland.
To take an example of the topics covered by the screening, the price of energy is a major driver of inflation and the cost of living. Renewable energy is not just better for the planet; it is more economically secure. Our dependency on fossil fuels has been responsible for huge economic shocks in recent years. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not make wind power more expensive, and Trump’s war with Iran did not make solar more costly. Almost 90 per cent of homes in Scotland rely on fossil fuels. It seems fairly obvious that, if we are less reliant on fossil fuels, we will be less exposed to the shocks created by global events.
Before entering Parliament, I spent about 15 years working as a hydrologist. During that time, I undertook hundreds of flood risk assessments across the UK for housing and commercial developments and for energy infrastructure. Over those 15 years, I watched climate change move from something that was discussed largely as a future risk to something that is increasingly reflected in day-to-day engineering practice.
When I started my career, it was common for us to apply a 20 per cent uplift for climate change to our calculations, to account for increased river flow or peak rainfall intensities in order to assess future impacts of flooding. Today, depending on the catchment, that figure can be as high as 59 per cent. Those changes are happening now. Those numbers are produced not by politicians or campaign groups but by scientists, engineers and regulators who are analysing the best available evidence we have today.
That evidence points to a clear direction: weather extremes are becoming more extreme. We are seeing more intense rainfall events, increasing flood risk, longer periods of drought and greater pressure on infrastructure that was never designed for the climate conditions that are now emerging. That is why I find concerning some of the language that has entered our political discourse in recent weeks and that has been repeated today. Once again, we have heard Reform members dismiss terms such as climate emergency and climate crisis as faith-based language rather than descriptions that are grounded in evidence.
I welcome David Barratt to the Parliament—he is one of the three Gallovidians that are now in the Parliament. Does he think that it is right that constituents in his home constituency of Galloway are subject to huge pylons and are not able to oppose the massive wind farms and solar and battery power plants that now cover our landscape when local communities should have more say?
To an extent, I agree with something that Finlay Carson referred to earlier, which is that a just transition takes people with it. As a former convener of the planning committee in Fife, I know that there is a process for commenting and taking part in the democratic processes that go along with that planning work. We do need infrastructure—that is part of it and it is a reality of the world that we are in—but I understand the point that he is making.
We have also heard Reform members call for Scotland to abandon net zero policies. I fully accept that there is room for legitimate debate about how we respond to climate change. We should debate which technologies we invest in, how we support workers through the transition, how we protect consumers and how we ensure that policies are fair and effective. However, there is a fundamental difference between debating solutions and dismissing the evidence that makes those solutions necessary.
As someone who has worked professionally in this field, I do not regard the language of climate emergency as a slogan. It reflects the reality that the risks identified by the science are becoming more serious and more urgent with every passing decade.
[Made a request to intervene.]
The member is in his last few seconds.
I believe that climate change should not be viewed solely through the lens of risk. Challenge also means opportunity, and Scotland possesses some of the greatest renewable energy resources in Europe. We have world-class engineering expertise and a highly skilled workforce with enormous potential for offshore energy storage and emerging low-carbon technologies.
Investment in renewable energy is not simply about reducing emissions. It is about strengthening our energy security, improving our resilience and creating jobs in future industries. The national emergency briefing asks a simple question: if the evidence points to growing risk, do we respond with urgency or do we bury our heads in the sand? For me, the answer is clear: we should meet the challenges of climate change with honesty about the risks, confidence in the science and optimism about the opportunities that are before us. If we do that, Scotland will not simply adapt to a changing world—we can help to lead it.
16:49
I put on the record how disappointed and, frankly, staggered I have been by some of the language that has been used in this debate. To refer to climate change as a faith-based belief is not only baffling and disrespectful but dangerous.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not take the intervention.
That said, although I recognise and condemn the spread of misinformation, as other speakers in this debate have outlined, I am not seeking to justify or determine the legitimacy of the climate emergency. The evidence is abundantly clear: from the work of countless scientific professionals, following evidence, scientific professional advice and research, to the experiences of those who are living with life-changing and life-threatening effects in Scotland and across the globe, we know that climate change constitutes a global emergency, and I am glad that we are recognising that today in our Scottish Parliament.
Although the challenges that we collectively face are immense, Scotland has the opportunity to show leadership. I am proud that the SNP will not shy away from that but will take action. Combining our ambitious net zero targets with our commitment to a just transition, we will ensure that delivering jobs, investment and fairness for communities remains at the forefront of all our climate action.
I am drawn to the final clauses of the motion, which state:
“the transformative opportunities presented by climate action, including significant economic, social, environmental and public health benefits, and acknowledges that delivery of the transition must be fair and inclusive for all.”
I whole-heartedly agree with that statement and can give a wonderful example of such opportunities in action in relation to investment in renewables. In my constituency of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, many communities were built on the back of industry and coal mining. Those communities powered Scotland for generations but were abandoned under successive Conservative Governments, and industry was torn out with little or no regard for the people who depended on it. Devastation, lost opportunity and a deep sense of betrayal are very much still felt, as I heard directly from people on the doorsteps during my campaign.
To turn that comment on its head, what about the total disregard for communities, including the one that Katie Hagmann used to live in, round about Newton Stewart, where people feel completely and utterly ignored when it comes to having massive renewables infrastructure right on their doorstep?
I am not in this Parliament to speak for Dumfries and Galloway Council, but I put on the record that I am a councillor in Dumfries and Galloway. There is a planning procedure in place, which is debated, and Dumfries and Galloway Council will certainly make representations. However, I do not recognise the situation that Mr Carson refers to.
When I consider the opportunities that have been brought forward by investments in the renewables sector, I am delighted to see that communities are being reimagined and revitalised. Locally, in CCDV, we have a group of nine community councils that have agreed to work together. They use the line
“Uniting our Communities – Investing in our Future”.
It is wonderful to see former coalfield communities speaking with a strong, collective voice.
The 9CC Group is widely considered to be an exemplar of best practice in using community benefit. Having met the team on the ground, I can see why. It is strategic in nature, ensuring that, instead of working in isolation, communities invest funding in long-term regeneration across the whole area. That includes working with the local council and supporting apprenticeships across businesses. The group is fair and transparent, and it uses an agreed framework with a clear distribution of funds, which leads to equity and avoids competition, meaning that everyone benefits.
There is local control and democratic leadership, because decisions are controlled by the community councils. There is also collaboration across communities, strengthening those communities and creating a shared voice with greater influence. Put simply, that turns community benefit into long-term, fair—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not, because I am just finishing up.
It ensures that the wealth from renewables delivers change for and in the communities that host them. This is the promise of a just transition: real change, delivered fairly by and for our communities. Now is the time to act, lead and deliver for Scotland’s future.
16:54
We are at a moment that will define the future that we leave to our children and grandchildren. The science is clear, the evidence is all around us and the window for action is narrowing. Today, red weather warnings for extreme heat have been issued in the south-east of England. This is the second heatwave of the summer and it is still June. More extreme weather is battering our farms and communities. Members should speak to farmers—they will tell them that things are getting harder and harder every year.
It would be easy to stand here in despair, but I stand here with determination, because Scotland needs to rise to the challenge and our communities need to be at the centre of what we do.
I am proud of what Scotland is already achieving. Scotland has decarbonised its electricity supply faster than almost any other country in Europe has done. More than 90 per cent of our electricity now comes from renewable sources—a transformation that is powered by the wind, waves and tides that shape our East Lothian shores every day.
In East Lothian, we see both the risks and the opportunities more clearly than most. Our beautiful coastline is being impacted by climate change—communities in Cockenzie, Prestonpans and North Berwick know the reality of coastal erosion and flooding. Our farmers are already having to adapt to changing weather patterns that affect crops and livestock.
However, East Lothian is also perfectly placed to be a green energy powerhouse. The Firth of Forth offers world-class conditions for offshore wind.
What does the member think about the impact of Berwick Bank wind farm, which would be just off our beautiful coast and would affect up to, I think, 80,000 birds, which are expected to be slaughtered by the turbines?
I would not use that terminology. I have engaged with the Scottish Seabird Centre, RSPB Scotland and local communities on that. That discussion is ongoing.
According to the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit’s report, “The Scottish Net Zero Economy in 2025”, East Lothian has one of the areas of highest relative exposure to the net zero economy in Scotland. I note key statistics for East Lothian. The net zero economy accounts for 6.8 per cent of local GVA and supports 1,380 jobs, which makes it a significant contributor to and employer in East Lothian. East Lothian is placed among the top areas in Scotland for the importance of green and net zero activity. That makes a real difference to our communities and to people’s livelihoods right now.
As I said, that includes transmission infrastructure, specialist manufacturing and fabrication. Local examples of companies are Sunamp, Lemac Power and Had-Fab. The net zero economy makes a stronger relative contribution in East Lothian than it does in many other parts of Scotland, and that highlights East Lothian’s specialisation in the green energy transition.
The role of heat networks will be key as we move forward, although we have not heard about that today. I commend the work of Lothian Heat.
Another key point is that one in three Scottish households cannot afford to keep warm. Energy bills keep rising. Families and households are struggling while energy companies are profiting. However, proposals could lead to more than £900 million in regional benefit, combatting fuel poverty in the region.
For me, a fundamental aspect is how we talk about climate change. It offers economic opportunities. Hundreds of local jobs are under development. Energy security is important. We can lower emissions and reduce impact on the climate.
Green jobs are already making a measurable, high-value impact in East Lothian. We have heard today from a few members about the importance of a just transition. We have a net zero target for 2045.
We need to support community energy projects, which are incredibly important. We also need to expand active travel networks so that people can cycle and walk across our towns and countryside, and we need to back innovation in green hydrogen and carbon capture.
We need to push for accelerated deployment of floating offshore wind, retrofitting of our homes to slash fuel poverty and new woodland creation that enhances biodiversity while locking away carbon.
None of this is easy. There will be difficult choices. We must be honest with people: meeting our climate targets requires change—in how we travel, heat our homes and use our land. However, change does not have to mean sacrifice. It can mean warmer homes, cheaper energy bills, better health from cleaner air and thousands of well-paid local jobs. A just transition means that no community is left behind.
We know that Scotland’s hands are still tied by decisions that are made in London. Failure to invest in grid infrastructure by successive UK Governments has held Scotland back. Successive UK Governments have cut support for renewables, delayed vital projects and prioritised short-term politics over long-term survival. That is why independence remains essential. An independent Scotland should have full control over our vast natural resources, the ability to strike our own international green energy deals and the power to align our immigration skills and investment policies with the urgent needs of the climate emergency.
The challenge is great, but so is our capacity to meet it. East Lothian has always punched above its weight, from the agricultural revolution to the industrial age. Now we can lead the green revolution.
We move to closing speeches.
16:59
I thank everyone for their contributions today. I will start by stating that there is a climate emergency. On that point I will say to my namesake across the chamber, Mr Duncan Massey, that I am glad that Reform is now recognising that climate change exists, but it is an emergency. This is the hottest day we have ever seen in June in the United Kingdom, and year upon year and month upon month, climate targets are being changed.
I challenge the member, and indeed everyone in the entire chamber, to point to the scientific information, especially from IPCC, that corroborates the claim that there is a climate emergency. It does not exist. [Interruption.] I would ask you to corroborate every claim that is made in this chamber with scientific evidence.
Speak through the chair, please, during interventions and contributions.
As I just said, today is the hottest day ever recorded in June in London. That record will be beaten tomorrow and probably again the following day. That is the evidence before our eyes, and we had the same in May. We can see numerous events. We can see the increasing need to build flood defences in Dumfries and we have had to do the same in Hawick.
Duncan Massey rose—
I will not continue on that point, so I will not take any more interventions on it. [Interruption.]
Moving on, the Government must realise that we are in danger of moving goalposts. As has been said in this debate by my colleague Sanne Dijkstra-Downie, it is tragic that we are missing our 2030 interim climate change targets and that eight out of 12 emissions milestones have been abandoned. We cannot keep moving the goalposts on this.
Indeed, the Liberal Democrats were the original green party, which is in part why I joined them. We always had ambitious targets on this issue. It was a Liberal Democrat minister in the first parliamentary session who set the first targets for renewable electricity use in Scotland. However, as Finlay Carson reminded us, targets are meaningless unless there is an action plan related to them. I will no doubt say this numerous times in this session: a target has to be related to a plan that says what is going to be done, by when, who will do it, how much it will cost and the change that it will deliver. Too frequently, we do not deliver on that.
However, the main issue that I want to sum up with is that we need to take people with us.
I would just like to say that the climate change plan is, effectively, that route map. The main part of the plan might be slim in bulk, but it has many annexes that set out plans for every sector.
I look forward to seeing how we follow through and deliver on those plans as they reach those who are responsible for carrying them out.
The main issue for me is how we take people with us. I slightly differ from Mark Ruskell, who said that there is still significant public interest in this issue—I do not think that there is the interest that there used to be. I am worried that climate change is being seen as a trend that we can move on from. It should not be seen as that. It is a crucial issue that will be pervasive through all our lifetimes and those in the future. One point that I do agree with is that young people recognise that, and that is their main fear. I agree with David Barratt that we need to see “The People’s Emergency Briefing” screened right across our country so that that understanding is pervasive—that is a tool to help us to do that.
I ask that, as political parties, we make sure that we reinforce this issue as a key message. I look to the Green Party in particular to do that and say this to it. Do not get distracted by other issues. When you came on to the scene, the environment and the driving forward of the message of the climate emergency were always seen to be part of your mandate. It would be good to see more of that.
Another area that I am worried about came up as a top priority when I knocked on thousands of doors, and it has been one of the main issues discussed by several members in this debate: what is happening with renewable energy infrastructure, particularly in our rural communities in the Highlands and right across the south of Scotland. People feel as though it is happening to them and not with them. People who are naturally inclined to support the movement towards our net zero ambitions and the industry that we require around it are feeling as though it is being imposed on them.
We need to be much more ambitious in that regard. In Scotland—I will pick this up with Katie Hagmann— only about £30 million was given to community benefit projects in 2025. That is tragic when you look at the fact that the industry is worth £100 billion. Investment of 0.03 per cent is paltry. We have to do better than that and be ambitious in our thinking about how we are going to take people with us. We urgently need a national plan on what renewable energy infrastructure we need, where we need it and how much we need per region, and it is in the Scottish Government’s powers to produce that. That would give people security and continuity.
Within that, people also want to know what they can get from renewable energy. Community benefit should in part be community ownership. Where is the ambition for that? We talk about the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, but what about community sovereign wealth funds, so that communities can really invest, we can overcome rural poverty and we can help sustainability to thrive in those areas again, never mind giving them access to free electricity?
I urge ministers to please lead. I like the tone on where we are going, but I ask ministers to hear and engage our communities going forward, as this is a national emergency for all of us.
17:05
This has been an important and wide-ranging debate, and I thank members from across the chamber for their contributions. There is common ground. We recognise the reality and impacts of climate change, we support climate action and we support Scotland’s ambition to reach net zero by 2045—well, most of us do. However, the issue, which has been highlighted throughout the debate, is not about ambition; it about whether the ambition is backed by credible and deliverable policy. Too often, what we hear from the Scottish Government is overly optimistic and is about progress that is not reflected in reality.
Scotland has missed emissions targets in eight of the past 12 years and the 2030 interim target has been abandoned. Progress has stalled in key sectors, including transport, buildings and agriculture. When ministers highlight isolated successes, they risk obscuring the central problem, which is the gap between ambition and delivery. That matters, because public confidence depends on targets being credible, achievable and backed by real plans.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time. Apologies.
In the previous session, we saw that clearly in the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, where witnesses pointed to a gap between ambition and implementation and a lack of the detailed policies that are needed to deliver. Reaching net zero will require significant changes across our economy, with real costs and trade-offs. That change must happen over timescales that are practical and achievable. If we move too slowly, we fail to act but, if we move too quickly without a plan, we risk damaging rural communities and businesses and our wider economy.
I asked Finlay Carson during his opening speech to outline Conservative policies that we could discuss and which could result in emissions reduction. Specifically on land use, what policies do the Conservatives want to bring forward that would see emissions reduction in rural spaces and in relation to land use?
I took three interventions in my opening speech, so I ran out of time to talk about that. One point is that we want an increase in the budget by £50 million, which would address some of the issues, rather than the year-on-year cut that we have seen from the SNP Government.
Getting the balance right is essential, as we have heard clearly today. Claire Baker raised concerns about the continued reduction in livestock numbers and what that means for rural Scotland. Heather Anderson, in a thoughtful contribution, reflected the experience of many in the sector. However, she found it difficult to point to a clear and practical policy that genuinely supports farmers in making the transition. That is the issue. Although change is happening, there is no clear road map to support it, and that risks becoming an unmanaged decline.
I welcome David Barratt’s recognition of the challenges facing communities in areas such as Galloway, where large-scale wind, solar and battery developments and the infrastructure that comes with them are having a growing impact. However, I was particularly disappointed that Katie Hagmann failed to recognise those concerns, especially given that she represents a community that, for many years has had campaigns such as Hands Off Our Hills and has felt increasingly ignored by her Government.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes—if I can get the time back.
What I would add to the debate and highlight to Finlay Carson is that, although some campaign groups are very loud, the hundreds of young people who come to me and who want to support green policies are often not heard. Although it is great to listen to one side of the argument, I invite the member to listen to both sides.
I think that we do. There is no denying that everyone sees renewables as part of our future, but having areas of Galloway industrialised by massive turbines against the will of the vast majority of people in the community is just not acceptable.
On Duncan Massey’s contribution, I do not believe that the task before us is simply to challenge the science; it is to respond to the science with realistic timescales, practical policies and credible plans, because climate policy cannot exist in isolation from economic realities. We must recognise the role of domestic oil and gas as part of a transition and support those who are already delivering for our environment across rural Scotland.
The Scottish Conservatives support action on climate change, but it must be credible, affordable and deliverable. That is the approach that is set out in our amendment, because we currently have a Government that is failing to meet its targets, deliver a truly just transition and provide the clear plan that people and businesses need. Ambition without delivery is failure, and Scotland cannot afford any more failure.
17:10
I started working on climate change and nature restoration in New York City in the 1990s. When I came back to live in Scotland, I was heartened, because I had arrived in a country where the people, through the Parliament and the Government of that time, had recognised the science-based evidence on climate change. It is good to hear the cabinet secretary recognise that in the chamber today, and I have heard it from colleagues across the chamber.
In 2019, the Parliament unanimously declared that there was a climate emergency. Doing so was supposed to lead to an increase in the roll-out of net zero policies, such as better buses, safer active travel and retrofitting our homes to make them warmer and cheaper to heat. Why, six years on and less than four years until 2030, am I hearing from countless people who know what is at stake that the urgent change that we need to see is not happening fast enough? I admit that we have done an incredible amount of work on energy, but there are other areas in which we need to move at a much more rapid pace.
We have heard from MSPs across the chamber—Sanne Dijkstra-Downie, Heather Anderson, David Barratt and Duncan Dunlop all talked about the wildfires and floods that demonstrate that we need to take critical action. I heard the cabinet secretary talk about this being the parliamentary session of action and the fact that we have a climate change plan. I sat on two committees in the previous session—the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee—that scrutinised the climate change plan, and we heard evidence from countless stakeholders that they did not feel confident that there was an adequate delivery plan in place.
This five-year parliamentary session is our last chance to get it right. We need bold climate change action. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s focus on that, but we have to bring about a secure transition that is just and fair, that delivers for the people of Scotland and that delivers greener, more affordable futures. Well-paid jobs in renewable energy have been talked about over the past five years—we need to see more work on that. We need accessible public transport—where is that happening on the ground? In my rural and island communities, it is sometimes really hard for people to even find a bus. We need the clean heating systems that our EU neighbours have enjoyed for decades. We also need a thriving natural environment, which will be the key in supporting us to adapt to climate change. Every sector of the economy and society will have to play its part. Critically, as has been stated by numerous colleagues this afternoon, we need to see rapid action in transport, in heat and buildings and in agriculture.
I will focus some more comments on agriculture, having just had a fantastic two days at the Royal Highland Show. We have the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 and the rural support plan, and we know that agriculture and land use play a vital role in the work that we need to do to bring down our emissions. The Scottish Greens campaigned on the idea of an agricultural transition insurance fund—we want to see £500 million of the agricultural budget put into it, because farmers need certainty. We are now in unknown territory when it comes to what we are doing in respect of our land use. We need to give farmers the certainty that if they take action, and it fails, they will still have support to take forward work on land use.
One thing that I noticed in the rural support plan, which I need to look at in more depth, is that it seems to indicate that food production is one thing and nature restoration is something else—two separate streams of activity.
However, I have met pioneering farmers who give me hope, because they recognise that there is a stacked function—the methods that they use to grow food will allow nature to regenerate. We must support farmers to move to nature-friendly, regenerative farming. Those pioneers have moved away from nitrogen use, they understand soil biology and they are choosing smaller herds and mob grazing.
We have legislated for regenerative agriculture, but we do not have the underpinning training. As I said to the minister in the previous parliamentary session, and as I will continue to say to him, we need a skills pipeline in regenerative agriculture so that we can bring new entrants into the system and support existing farmers to transition with confidence. The training must be farmer led and based on farm clusters. We cannot footer around with sporadic funding from the knowledge transfer and innovation fund; we need that pipeline.
I want to briefly mention an issue that is connected to what David Barratt said about a national emergency briefing. In January, the UK Government published its national security assessment on global biodiversity loss, which states:
“Collapse impairs an ecosystem’s ability to provide vital services including clean water, food production, and climate regulation.”
That is another blue light flashing quickly and brightly that shows that the Government should move even more swiftly.
When the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee considered the climate change plan in the previous parliamentary session, one thing gave me hope when I thought, “How the heck are we going to do this?” As well as the pioneering farmers, the other people who give me hope are the people in local government who have already rolled up their sleeves. They know what they need to do, but they need Government funding to bring about action at a local level. People throughout the public sector are ready to take action. They just need the Government to give them the funding to support them to take it.
17:17
There is a failure at the heart of modern politics: the belief that a policy wrapped in virtue should be spared from scrutiny. The people of Scotland expect those who govern to prove their case, to show their evidence and to demonstrate that every decision will strengthen our people and will not weaken them. The present political push—
Will Angela Ross take an intervention?
I have not got far, but go on then.
On the point about evidence, robust evidence from the National River Flow Archive, which is the UK’s official river flow archive, shows that there has been an upward trend in peak river flow data sets. Does she accept that her colleague is wrong?
I am not here to talk for my colleague right now. When David Barratt talks about peak river flow data, is he saying that there has been an increase in the rise of rivers?
Yes.
Okay. I live locally to Musselburgh, where, in 1948, there was the worst flood involving the River Esk. The height is marked on a wall, so members can go and look at it for themselves. We have had flooding for an awful long time.
The present political push for net zero targets and rush to implement renewables without proper infrastructure, and at higher costs due to, for example, curtailment costs, while we drop oil and gas licences overnight and block nuclear development, is ruining our economy. That is at the heart of our concern. We want people to get a fair and just energy transition. I think that most people would agree that we do not want the public or businesses to suffer or struggle. We must find ways forward and not get caught up in circular debates.
In relation to nuclear energy, can Angela Ross explain the current costs of Hinkley Point C and the projected costs of Sizewell C? Will she tell us how not spending that amount of money is somehow ruining our economy?
I thank Alan Brown for his point. Torness nuclear power station, which is near where I live, contributes £45 million to the local economy, but that money will be gone when the power station is switched off in 2030.
I think that most of us would agree that we do not want the public to suffer—we have talked about that—and we owe it to them to find solutions. As I said, we cannot keep on having these circular debates and arguments around doing one thing or the other; we need to move forward. As someone who has been in the public eye only for a short time and has only very recently moved into politics, I am already tired of hearing circular debates.
The question is less about whether we trust the science and more about whether we trust what the Government is doing with the science. In the light of that, it is important to consider how the science is presented to us; who interprets it for policy; which assumptions and benchmarks are chosen; and whether the resulting decisions are proportionate, transparent and practical for Scotland’s economy and infrastructure and for our communities.
The Climate Change Committee, for example, is an independent statutory group of mainly scientists that advises the Scottish Government. However, it is funded in part by the Scottish Government, and the person who oversees that committee is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero at Westminster. Can we trust the CCC, therefore, to be truly impartial? I am thinking about some of the optics here.
It may surprise members to learn that I actually studied environmental archaeology and paleoecology at the University of Edinburgh; I know about science, and I know about data and interpreting it. I studied core samples extracted from the ground—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am going to make some progress, just so that I do not keep us here too late—sorry.
I studied core samples extracted from the ground in Scotland, not far from here, and used dendrochronology, entomology and pollen samples to determine climate patterns. I learned for myself that the climate is dynamic—it does change, and we have seen dramatic changes over expansive phases of time.
There are two key points that I want to raise from the recent “Scotland’s Carbon Budgets” report by the Climate Change Committee. First, the temperature graph on page 21, to which members can refer later, shows a gradual rise in the mid-1800s, around the start of the main phase of industrialisation, with an increase of roughly 1°C. An uptick then occurred over the past 50 years. We note that that is an increase—we agree that there has been some correlation—but we should keep it in proportion. A 1°C change in the global average is significant, but it is not, in and of itself, an argument for policy at any price. It should not prompt anything other than careful, practical, transparent decision making.
Does the member accept that there is a cost to inaction if we do not tackle climate change? The UK Climate Change Committee reported last month that inaction to adapt is predicted to cost us between 1 per cent and 5 per cent of UK gross domestic product—that is, between £60 billion and £260 billion per year if we do not act. We are seeing that today with disruption to travel, damage to property and infrastructure and, in extreme cases, risk to life. There is a cost to that.
We are more concerned about the rate and speed at which we have been dropped off a cliff edge, if you like, financially. We have switched so fast from what we had before to what we are looking at in the future that we did not even have in place the right infrastructure to store and transmit energy from the new renewables. That is our concern, but I thank the member for her point.
We need to prompt careful, practical and transparent decision making and not panic with slogans or policies that weaken the very people we are meant to protect. We can recognise the data and still do better in how we respond to it.
The benchmark that is used in the CCC’s framework is the international goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels; that is mentioned in the Government motion. My concern is how that benchmark is applied in policy and whether the assumptions behind it are presented with enough context, transparency and realism.
We must keep in mind that the preindustrial phase sits at the end of what is known as the little ice age, which is not as cute as it sounds. It was a period from 1300 to 1840 when Scotland endured colder winters, shorter growing seasons, frozen rivers and real hardship that we have not seen in modern times. We know that from the archaeological and written records.
The little ice age was driven by lower solar energy, increased volcanic eruptions, changes in ocean circulation and natural climatic variability, yet today we are told that we must hold global temperatures to within 1.5°C of that period, as if nature were a thermostat. That benchmark represents an extremely cold phase that would not align with modern society. It feels like a profound oversimplification of a complex dynamic system. The bottom line is that it is impossible to hold a constant in a dynamic system.
Secondly, I draw members’ attention to page 39 of the carbon budget report, which shows a steep fall in Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2019, as the cabinet secretary mentioned earlier. As we have heard, some of that reduction came from a move away from coal, but some of it reflects a wider and deliberate economic shift—deindustrialisation and the movement of production, with emissions therefore going overseas. In other words, we have not always cut emissions so much as moved them out of sight.
The member must come to a conclusion.
Of course—I will just skip a few bits.
Is it really an emergency when, over the past two decades, we have seen such a significant drop? The emission target has dropped.
Let us be clear: the real crisis that people feel today is financial. When energy bills are high and 23 per cent of the costs are for subsidies and green levies, businesses and families are really feeling the strain. The catastrophic deindustrialisation that we have seen has removed jobs and the opportunity for self-sufficiency and growth.
I want to move to something slightly more positive, which, actually, comes from the words of Tony Blair.
The member must come to a conclusion.
I am wrapping up.
He said that the debate on climate change is “irrational”. I could not agree more. We must step past the head-butting arguments about whether climate change exists and take a sensible approach to policy that does not bankrupt us in the pursuit of targets.
17:26
My entry in the register of members’ interests will show that I run a crofting business that is in receipt of agricultural support, and that I am a shareholder in a common grazing with an interest in peatland restoration.
We welcome the Government motion and the cabinet secretary’s indication that the Government will support the Labour amendment.
We are in a climate emergency, and it is right that the Parliament recognises that, as well as the scale of the challenge that is in front of us. In our islands, the impacts of climate change are not a far-off abstract concept; they are day-to-day life. In Uist, stormier weather and rising sea levels are eating away at the coastline and we are losing bits of our islands, while the same changes threaten the future viability of the causeways that link our communities. Other members from across the chamber have talked about the impacts of flooding and fires in their constituencies. We cannot sit this one out. We must play an active role.
The Government motion is correct to highlight the opportunities of taking climate change seriously. We have an abundance of renewables potential in Scotland, but we must question who will benefit. The Government talks of Scotland’s energy, as we have already heard in debates in this parliamentary session, but, in reality, it is multinational corporations’ energy—the same as our oil and gas sector. Of course I welcome the jobs and supply chain growth that comes with that, but we have failed to learn the lessons of the past, and we have allowed our renewable energy potential to be handed over to private businesses and even foreign-state-owned companies, while hoping that we have something of what is left over.
The expansion of renewables cannot be at any cost, and we need a more strategic approach to how projects are developed and delivered. Appropriate community benefit must be a part of that, as we heard from Katie Hagmann. Ownership matters, and there is a different way to do things. Communities in my constituency have led the way with wholly community-owned schemes from Barra to Galson. Their projects are helping us to meet our climate targets and deliver meaningful change for our communities. It does not stop there. The Point and Sandwick Trust on Lewis is using profits from its 9MW wind farm to invest in three planting and energy efficiency projects, which is the kind of transformational change that we heard about from Duncan Dunlop.
Unlocking the next generation of community energy opportunities is proving challenging. Support from the Scottish Government’s community and renewable energy scheme—CARES—fund, which includes increased funding from GB Energy that is, rightly, being delivered through the existing mechanism, is crucial to developing projects. However, access for community projects to the grid remains a challenge. These are complex problems and getting the projects realised will take collaborative working. The cabinet secretary engaged constructively with UK counterparts in the previous session, and I hope that she will encourage her successor in the energy brief to do the same.
Land is critical to meeting our climate ambitions. Emissions from land and land-based industries present enormous opportunities, with peatland restoration, forestry and agriculture presenting the biggest chance for delivery. Work by the Scottish Land Commission has shown that land suitable for planting and natural capital schemes, particularly in our upland areas, saw a dramatic rise in value before falling again, so we must be cautious about how policy on land use change impacts the land market. The nature finance initiative has not unlocked private investment to deliver peatland restoration, and uncertainty about carbon markets has held back restoration in some areas, so understanding how best to make public investment in restoration will be key to unlocking more hectares of restoration and avoiding unintended impacts on the land market in the future.
Land use change does not have to be an either/or. My own sheep at home spend time grazing on restored peatland and some of the best examples that we see are of shared land use, whether of sheep on restored peatland or cattle grazing alongside forestry. If we get that right, we can build landscapes that are more resilient to climate change, reduce land-based emissions and, importantly, take rural communities with us.
Regarding agriculture, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has reiterated its commitment not to adopt the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation about livestock numbers. However, despite that, numbers continue to fall, which is a threat to the critical mass that is required to support the agricultural supply chain across the country, to the biodiversity that grazing livestock supports and to our rural communities. That trend must be taken seriously and cannot be viewed as inevitable in helping us meet targets. Meeting our climate targets will require difficult decisions, but we must be wary of the unintended consequences, as I have outlined.
If targets are to be met, the pace of change must increase and areas such as the retrofitting of houses and the decarbonisation of heat and transport will be crucial to making that happen. Meeting those targets is not something that would be nice to have; it is an essential and, as we have heard today, it brings opportunity. Unlocking the potential of community energy is one such opportunity. It can contribute to meeting our climate targets while, at the same time, having significantly more local economic impact than would come from commercial projects. Community groups in my constituency have shown how that can be done, but they need our support to build on that early success and to deliver for the future.
I call the cabinet secretary, who has up to 9 minutes.
17:32
I have, on the whole, very much enjoyed the debate and particularly enjoyed the contribution from Donald MacKinnon, who showed, even in just the five or six minutes for which he spoke, that he is willing to work across Parliament on a shared purpose. I warmly welcome that because, as I have already said many times in this session, delivery will be key and that delivery must come from those who share a common purpose. If we do not do that, we will repeat the mistakes of the past 10 years, since I came into Parliament, by being obsessed with, and agreeing on, targets but then seeing people fall away when it comes to even the most minute intervention through policy, legislation, or support for measures in the budget.
We are long past that point and, frankly, we are also long past the, “Is climate change real?” debate. I totally agree with Mark Ruskell that it is exhausting to revisit that argument, because it has been won and the science is there. We have heard some quite shameful misquoting from various highly respected scientific and advisory bodies that have advised Governments all over the world. I imagine that the ears of those on the IPPC must be burning because of some of the ways in which they have been mischaracterised. There has been talk about taking away the RCP 8.5 scenario, but that did not happen because there was no climate emergency; it happened because pathways towards decarbonisation were improving and the cost of renewable energy, in particular, was coming down, which meant that the scenario could be taken away as a result.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will not, for fear that Mr Massey will get himself into trouble with the IPPC, because he has misquoted and mischaracterised it enough today.
Read the report!
There should be no shouting across the chamber.
Mark Ruskell made a point about future generations, but it is not just future generations who will have the opportunities associated with climate action, because we are seeing those for current generations and the current workforce. On every visit that I did when I was energy secretary, and on many visits done as part of my new portfolio, I have met people who have come from traditional, high-carbon industries and have moved into new ones.
The sectors that are associated with climate action are some of the fastest growing, not just in Scotland but around the world. If we do not get involved in climate action activities, the march will be stolen by other countries, who absolutely will.
I asked Finlay Carson for suggestions on what the Conservatives want to see that would reduce emissions, but I am afraid that spending more money was not what I had in mind. It was policy actions that I was looking for. I am serious when I say that I want to work with people. I also say to him gently that the forestry grant has increased on previous years. There is a £57 million forestry grant this year.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No. I want to get some responses on the record. With the agri-environment climate scheme, £350 million is going out the door to our farmers to help them to decarbonise. I think that that relates to one of the interventions that Mr Carson tried to make on my colleague Heather Anderson.
I welcome Sanne Dijkstra-Downie’s speech. This is the first time that we have been in a debate together, but we will be meeting, I think tomorrow, to go over our shared objectives. She mentioned community resilience, particularly in the various areas that she represents. I highly recommend that she goes to Inverleith park and has a discussion about the facility for investment ready nature in Scotland—FIRNS—payments. The community was able to leverage in private finance as well and have a nature-based solution for some of the flooding issues there.
Speaking of flooding, I note that a number of members mentioned how important nature-based solutions are. Heather Anderson talked about resilience in communities and about the Broughty Ferry flood protection scheme, which uses nature to do the job of a drainage system and soak up excess water. Those are real ways of tackling devastating things that affect people. Increased flooding is not something that we can ignore, because bizarre weather patterns as a result of climate change mean that we are having more flash floods. We are not just having expected floods in winter; we are having flash floods in summer as well. We are also having wildfires in places in Scotland and around the world that have never had them before, and we need to improve our resilience to them.
I very much enjoyed David Barratt’s speech on resilience building and the opportunities, although I gently say to members in the chamber that jobs associated with climate action are not just jobs in renewables, which are just a very small part. Duncan Massey underestimated the number of jobs that are associated with renewables—I think that it is twice what he mentioned. However, it is important to note that jobs associated with climate action include jobs in land management, forestry, academia and research, biofuels, wildlife management, peatland restoration, waste management, circular economy businesses, the manufacturing of low-carbon products and structural engineering. They include reams of jobs that have nothing to do with renewables.
Renewables are a very big part of our decarbonisation journey, but most of the decarbonisation associated with our energy has already been done. The heavy lifting has to come from the decarbonisation of transport, buildings and land use. As we set out in the climate change plan in March, we absolutely prioritise action in those areas, and particularly in transport. I look forward to working with colleagues on how we do that.
Paul McLennan was the only member to mention heat networks, I think. I am sorry if I have—
I mentioned them, too.
Stuart McMillan mentioned them as well. Heat networks are going to be critical, and they represent a major opportunity to rid Scotland of the scourge of fuel poverty. By bringing people together on such things, which affect individuals, we will see off those who would want to deny that climate action is necessary.
I hear what the cabinet secretary says about heat networks and I very much agree with her, having lived in two post-communist cities that were served very well by them. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we could get major heat from the data centres that are proposed, but that they would need to be relatively near industrial zones or accommodation that could use that heat?
Heat networks will be the solution for a lot of urban areas and towns in Scotland, but they will not be the solution for everyone. If we can install more heat networks in the highly populated areas, we will be able to use some of the Government money to put in heat systems such as heat pumps in the more rural areas. Many of those areas are the most fuel poor because they are not connected to the gas grid, so they have not been able to take advantage of the lower gas price.
In addition, the situation in the middle east has shown us—again—that we cannot afford to be exposed to international energy shocks. We have had one wake-up call after another on this issue. This year, we had a price at the pump that was astronomical. Businesses were finding it very difficult to keep their heads above water—farming businesses in particular, because of the cost of red diesel. We are talking about the wrong thing. Energy production is one thing, but we need to reduce our reliance on the burning of fossil fuels. That is how we will reduce our exposure to global shocks, but it is also how we will have economic growth and action on the cost of living. I mentioned that, since 1990, there has been a 50 per cent reduction in emissions; however, there has been massive growth at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I will take us back somewhat. Does the cabinet secretary not accept that, without honesty and realism, there is a risk of losing public confidence in the entirety of the move to net zero? For example, why does the cabinet secretary have her head in the sand when it comes to the impact of slashing the woodland grant scheme in 2024-25? What impact did that have on confidence in the sector, given that the target is 18,000 hectares but the most recent figures suggest that only 8,000 have been planted?
Thank you, Mr Carson—
That budget was for one year, but it had a multiyear impact.
I have worked well with Finlay Carson, on the whole. We had a very constructive meeting last week, I thought. However, I will not be called dishonest in the chamber. I have already set out that there is £57 million in forestry grant for 2026-27. If Finlay Carson wants to talk about a year in the past in which the funding was lower, and obsess over that, that is fine, but I am moving forward. We have secured that money. I will not be called dishonest by Finlay Carson or anyone else.
Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?
I believe that I am in my last minute.
A few people mentioned CARES funding. There is £15 million annually to keep up with rising demand, but we are also taking action in getting communities to be available to bid for repowering schemes. Forestry and Land Scotland has repowering opportunities, and we are making sure that communities are first in the queue to take advantage of those, supported by CARES.
There is so much more to say and so many actions that we need to take in order to meet our climate change targets. However, the targets are one thing; the implications for economic growth, public health resilience and opportunities for Scotland are vast. That is what I want to concentrate on, with people who want to come with me with solutions.
The Government is reducing emissions through a fair and just transition, increasing our climate resilience and capturing the economic, social and other benefits in which Scotland remains unwavering. I look forward to continuing to deliver on that for people and planet—with fellow travellers.
That concludes the debate on meeting the challenge of climate change.
Previous
Non-domestic Rates