The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01406, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on Scotland’s contribution to the United Nations climate summit.
14:57
Against a background of continuing global economic difficulties, over the next two weeks around 200 nations, parties to the UN framework convention on climate change, will meet again in Durban, South Africa, to continue negotiations on international action to tackle global climate change.
Climate change is certainly a huge environmental threat to the international community, with the poor and vulnerable, particularly in developing countries, being worst affected. It is also a huge threat to the global economy. Unchecked, it is reckoned that it could cost between 5 and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product.
At the Copenhagen climate talks two years ago, Scotland presented its strategy of acting as a model of best practice on climate change. In unanimously agreeing a world-leading target to cut emissions by 42 per cent by 2020 in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, the Parliament had strong support from business and civic society. Despite the strong commitment of Scotland and others to tackling the issue, there was no breakthrough at Copenhagen. Our hopes for a single, global, legally binding climate change treaty now rest on making steady progress, year by year, in constructing the building blocks for a treaty to be agreed at some, hopefully not-too-distant, future date.
Scottish ministers were determined not to let the disappointment of Copenhagen dilute our commitment. We had already moved on from seeking high ambition to putting in place the framework for delivery: annual targets that would allow us to say, year on year, how we proposed to meet our 2020 goal; proposals and policies to drive down emissions; plans for public engagement; and research on consumer behaviours.
International interest in Scotland’s climate change commitments and programmes continued to grow. At last year’s UNFCCC summit in Cancún, Scottish ministers had a place on the United Kingdom delegation for the first time. As well as working with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the UK team, we began work to strengthen our support for developing countries, progressing our partnership with the Maldives with the funding of a study by Robert Gordon University into the marine energy potential of the islands. That study has now been finalised and will help the Maldives Government’s development of its renewable energy strategy.
We have also launched international partnerships with the Inter-American Development Bank and the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, and we have begun discussions with Malawi on how we could build on the renewable energy pilots by the University of Strathclyde that have been funded under our international development fund.
In these hard economic times, while people throughout the world understand the environmental and moral messages on the need to act on climate change as a matter of climate justice for developing countries, they are naturally concerned about jobs. The Scottish Government believes that the evidence from Scotland demonstrates the powerful jobs, investment, trade and economic growth potential of the low-carbon economy.
In Scotland, we have a GDP of around £100 billion, with a low-carbon market of around £8.8 billion that is forecast to rise to some £12 billion by 2015-16, thus representing more than 10 per cent of the Scottish economy and around 5 per cent of the workforce. Globally, the market is already worth £3 trillion—£3 million million—and is forecast to increase in value to £4.3 trillion by 2014-15.
With 25 per cent of Europe’s offshore wind and tidal energy resource, 10 per cent of Europe’s wave potential and its largest offshore storage capacity for carbon dioxide, Scotland has a unique competitive advantage in the low-carbon economy. The market offers a broad range of opportunities across the economy for Scotland, and it includes sub-markets of renewable energy and low-carbon, environmental and clean technologies.
Our strategy is to encourage investment in jobs by remaining at the forefront of the development of regulatory frameworks for clean energy technology. We believe that the competitive advantage lies in being at the forefront of technological innovation.
Does the minister accept that such a clear and unremitting focus on the economic benefits that he seeks to gain from low-carbon technologies will be seen as coming at the expense of the moral responsibility that we talked about when we passed the 2009 act if he decides that Scotland should use carbon credits to meet what were intended to be domestic targets for reducing emissions?
I hope that the member was listening when I appeared at the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee earlier this week. It is not a plan of ours to use carbon credits, but any country that does use them has a choice in the nature of the credits. If a country used credits, it would certainly be important for it to consider how the credits can deliver a benefit to the developing world as a way of managing issues in its own country. Credits can be used to deliver a moral and social purpose if a country believes that it needs them, but we are not in that position at this stage.
Our strategic approach has attracted major international investors, such as Mitsubishi, Iberdrola and Gamesa, to set up global research and development centres in Scotland. Over the past year, there has been further growth in international interest in Scotland’s progress on low carbon.
David Cameron has thanked the Scottish ministers for their support for greater ambition in the European Union on climate change and to drive green investment, and he has acknowledged that Scotland has good examples to share of progressive climate policies delivering jobs and investment. At the invitation of the UK Government, we have provided low-carbon case studies to assist it in its international influencing efforts. Indeed, we use them ourselves.
Members should not just take David Cameron’s word that Scotland is setting the pace on international action—there are some here who might be reluctant to do so. The First Minister was recently given the international climate leadership award by the Government of South Australia—a part of Australia that, under the previous premiership of Mike Rann, has been taking the lead on the climate change agenda in the southern hemisphere.
With co-operation from the UK Government, I have been taking Scotland’s messages on low-carbon economics to colleagues in Europe. I have met ministers from Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia and Malta to share the Scottish experience of low-carbon jobs, investment and economic growth. Those messages about the jobs potential of the low-carbon economy have been warmly received and there are clearly opportunities for co-operation.
The Scottish ministers have an unprecedented level of international engagement on climate change. That will continue in Durban, where I will be part of the UK ministerial team. There, we will continue to demonstrate how we are making the low-carbon economy a reality. We will demonstrate how our leadership in low carbon is resulting in jobs and growth even in these stretched financial times. We will demonstrate that investment now will lead to energy security and lower costs for consumers in the long term.
A Scottish Government official will also work with the UK team on the UN’s capacity building work stream. That, as Mr Harvie may care to note, is of key importance to developing countries. We plan to strengthen further our support for developing countries in line with our new profile in the world.
There are significant positives on which to build. There is now an agreed aim of limiting the global temperature rise to no more than 2°C, although current emissions reduction pledges are not nearly enough to achieve that. A lot more work is needed to break out of the current low-ambition stand-off of major international players.
Scotland is not alone among countries in setting high ambition. The UK, Germany and Denmark have also committed to high targets for 2020 and the Australian Government is introducing carbon legislation. There are also good examples of helpful actions in China, India and the United States.
It must also be said that, despite the slow progress towards a global treaty, the other countries that are not yet adopting the formal targets are, nonetheless, making investment in the low-carbon economy where they see economic benefit. We can expect countries such as China and India to continue to do that to an increasing degree in the years to come.
Scotland has been an active member of the Climate Group’s states and regions alliance for many years. That highlights the fact that many progressive policies and actions are being delivered at sub-national and local levels of government, including in US states such as California and Texas.
The leadership of the EU and the UK is another invaluable asset. The EU has said that it is open to a second commitment period for the Kyoto protocol after 2012, which keeps the way open for other parties to make similar commitments.
However, time is short. We do not expect to break through at Durban and, with global emissions at an all-time high, we have only a short time span to get them on a downward track, allowing for the time that it would take for countries to ratify a new treaty.
Therefore, my message when I attend the UNFCCC in Durban as part of the UK delegation will be that it is imperative that we do not miss the massive opportunities that the fundamental shift in the global economy will provide. We believe that action is needed now to grasp the opportunities that higher ambition on emissions reduction presents to drive and incentivise investment in new low-carbon markets, to achieve energy security and to achieve environmental and climate justice objectives.
The evidence already shows that investment is happening in Scotland and that the country is already securing competitive advantage through new technologies and markets. Other countries should follow suit.
In addition, it is imperative that Scotland continues to articulate to the international community that, as an industrialised country, we have a moral obligation to act on climate change and to influence others worldwide to do the same.
Many countries are, of course, far less fortunate than Scotland is. They do not share our wealth of natural resources and renewable energy potential. By sharing our knowledge and information, creating partnerships between academic institutions and working with countries that are likely to be disproportionately affected by climate change, we not only support our overall approach to international development but assist developing countries in their transition to a lower-carbon economy appropriate to their circumstances.
The Scottish Government is giving clear direction and support to the development of the low-carbon economy. Similar action should take place in Europe and around the globe and we must work together to ensure that we grasp the low-carbon economic opportunity.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that Scotland will be participating in the 17th Conference of the Parties on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as a member of the UK delegation; encourages active engagement with other delegations to deliver the message that action on climate change is both necessary and urgent, and recognises that Scotland’s experience demonstrates that action on climate change can create jobs, investment, trade and economic growth opportunities.
15:10
We, too, had great hopes for the Copenhagen summit. Although some progress was made, it illustrated the challenge of achieving climate justice around the globe.
Last month, I was privileged to visit Bangladesh with Voluntary Service Overseas, having been tasked to produce a report on the impact of climate change on water and sanitation. The villagers I met already see seasonal changes with wetter, more unpredictable monsoons and hotter, drier weather. Because so much of Bangladesh is already below sea level, people find talk of even a tiny rise in sea levels deeply alarming.
What is agreed in Durban is no academic exercise. For millions of the world’s poorest people, it will mean the difference between being a farmer and being a homeless climate refugee. We need agreement to ensure that countries take responsibility for their emissions and are transparent in recording their progress. Furthermore, any agreement must mean money for climate adaptation to ensure that countries that are economically disadvantaged and vulnerable to climate change are helped to survive the coming decades. Their development must be low carbon and their natural assets, which act as carbon sinks, must be properly valued and protected.
Like the minister, I am proud of our strong climate change legislation. Labour played a constructive role in that by improving the Scottish National Party’s original proposals and reflecting the aspirations of the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition to set a strong framework for action for business, national and local government, local communities and, indeed, all of us as citizens. Although we will be constructive again today in this debate, we are concerned that the motion sets out only half the picture. For a start, it is too self-congratulatory. There is much to be proud of but we should not pretend that it is enough; indeed, the Scottish Government’s own figures for the past two years show as much. Even with the recession and tiny targets of 0.5 per cent this year and 0.3 per cent next year, the Government will struggle. It is all a far cry from the 3 per cent annual targets that people were promised.
Our disappointment stems from the fact that, although the policy levers exist to grow a low-carbon economy and cut emissions, they are not being used to the full and there are serious concerns that even the limited and vague measures in the report on proposals and policies, detailing how the Government intends to meet the targets, have not been allocated adequate funding in the budget settlement.
Does the member accept that it is not just for the Government to fund the proposals and policies in that report and that, in fact, the majority of the funding that will deliver what is in the RPP will come from the private sector, and from power generation in particular? It is all about a balance between the different sectors.
Yes, but the key point is that it is the role of the Scottish Government to lead and to demonstrate that it will do what it expects others to do. Cutting the active and sustainable travel budget by 45 per cent over the next three years sends the wrong message and stands in total contrast to the SNP’s election pledge. When we signed up collectively to ambitious targets in the previous session, we did so in the knowledge that they would be challenging but doable. We argued that early action was vital to create new jobs and industries and to help people to survive the recession. Although renewables are vital, the Government must give a much higher priority to energy efficiency. Not enough is being done to make the big lifestyle and economic changes that are needed.
For example, electric vehicles could be transformative, would enable green manufacturing and would be effective not only in our towns but in rural areas that have ready access to renewable electricity, such as the northern isles and the Western Isles. Moreover, if electric vehicles were linked with the car club movement, people on lower incomes could access them, too. It is therefore just plain daft that the money that has been allocated to kick-start the electric car transformation has been taken from the sustainable travel budget, which has been cut. That simply does not make sense.
What is plan B if a deal is not struck in Durban? The minister warned about that in his opening speech. Delay now means storing up tougher and more expensive decisions for the future and years of unnecessary carbon emissions building up in our environment.
Our amendment is a reality check. It is intended to be constructive. We have to be realistic about the future. It is clear that we need sustained action over time and across Government elections. Crucially, we need the report on proposals and policies not just to be a stronger mechanism but to have funding for its implementation.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not, as I took a long intervention earlier.
We have resisted the temptation to provide a list of potential budget changes because it is not just about this budget; it is about subsequent budgets, too, and all of us signing up. If we were in power, there would be much more on energy efficiency in homes and buildings, low-carbon vehicles and sustainable transport.
We have welcomed the progress on the fossil fuel levy, but how will that money be used? What about investment in our low-carbon environment? We have immense peatlands in Scotland. They are our rainforests and our natural carbon sink, but they are not being looked after. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds argues that, around the world, the large-scale degradation of peatlands is resulting in serious environmental impacts. The UK is in the top 20 for carbon emissions from damaged peatlands, and Scotland has 80 per cent of the UK’s deepest blanket bog peatlands. Therefore, we need action now. If our peatlands are left to dry out, the environmental damage will be immense, and the carbon emission reductions that we will need to make elsewhere in the economy will be hugely increased. We cannot just do the stuff that it is good to talk about; we must do the hard stuff as well. There is no room for complacency.
Through freedom of information work that we have done, we have uncovered that the claims that the Scottish Government has made about the climate challenge fund have been overstated and not effectively monitored. I suspect that we could debate that matter for an hour. It is not enough to make claims about what will happen; we need to ensure that things have happened and that we learn lessons. Claims have been made about climate change emission reductions that will be delivered, but we know that they will not happen in every case. If there is a project to make a village hall energy efficient, for example, a carbon emissions reduction will be predicted, but if the hall is used much more than it was before, its carbon emissions will increase. That is not a bad thing, but the predicted emission cannot be bagged; the emissions as they happen must be looked at. There must be credibility. It is not enough to make predictions; the outcomes of projects must be considered. We need better monitoring in every aspect, not only of one fund.
We want to highlight the increasing challenge. Approval for a new power station at Hunterston, for example, would be massively damaging for Scotland’s carbon reductions. It is disappointing that we do not have carbon capture and storage for Longannet, and today’s European Environment Agency report adds yet more weight for action to reduce CO2 emissions and protect our environment. Today, Jewel and Esk College is announcing plans to go solar, but the UK Government is cutting back on crucial investment to enable people to install solar panels, which would save money and emissions and, crucially, create jobs.
There can be no room for complacency. We need action at every level of government—whether at the UK, Scottish or local level—and action in the business community. We need to ensure that, when actions are being predicted and benefits are being stated, they are real. That is vital so that, when the minister is abroad talking up what we are doing in Scotland, there is a reality check and a sense of humility. We know that the emissions reductions that we must make will be challenging. If cuts are being made in the sustainable travel budget while we spend lots of money on major road building, the impact on how we will reduce our carbon emissions must be thought through. We do not believe that enough is being done in that respect.
It is not enough simply to make good claims about energy efficiency investment in our houses and buildings; we must ensure that there is real investment. It is not good enough for the Government to claim that it is increasing the budget because it previously reduced it. That is not a real gain. We need decisive action.
I agree with the minister that progress in the Durban talks is vital, but it is not enough just to talk about the good things that we are doing on low-carbon investment. We must be honest with the rest of the world about the areas in which we will find it hard to reduce our carbon emissions as well, and we know that our increasing use of energy is massively challenging. We need only look at the footprint from our use of cars and other vehicles and at the emissions that they create. The process will not be simple and we delude ourselves and other people if we pretend that it will be.
The agenda must have buy-in from not just the SNP Government but future Governments and businesses and local authorities throughout Scotland. The consequences of inaction would be devastating and future generations would not thank us. The amendment in my name is not a delete-all amendment but a constructive amendment, which shows that we are all behind the minister in meeting the challenge.
I move amendment S4M-01406.3, to insert at end:
“but realises that meeting the targets set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 will be increasingly challenging, will require the statutory Report on Policies and Proposals to be fully funded to meet the 2022 emissions targets and that therefore there is no room for complacency.”
15:20
It is nice to be back and to see so many familiar faces on the front benches. I have arrived in this climate change debate by a series of defaults. In spite of the recent reshuffle in the Conservative ranks, I am not a climate change spokesman. I do not think that I am even the second choice. Never mind; here we are. We can remember the good old days when we all worked together on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.
At that time, I made it clear that I am something of a foot-dragger, if not a knuckle-dragger, when it comes to climate change issues. However, I am convinced that climate change is a problem, which we need to address. There are one or two people in my party who do not share that view, but I made my living as a farmer in the north-east for many decades and I realise that the climate is changing and that the causes are—at least in part—significantly man made.
It is ironic that conferences such as the one that we are discussing happen in warm, far-flung parts of the world and that ministers from European and North American nations will get on planes later this month and travel all the way to Durban in South Africa to enjoy some nice summer sun in the southern hemisphere.
We know that Scotland is a model of good practice—perhaps the model of best practice, as the minister said—but there was disappointment after the Copenhagen conference, and last year’s discussion at Cancún left as many questions as it found solutions.
The amendment in my name is subtle and makes a single point. I lodged it largely because, although I support the Government’s motion, one aspect of it is not clear enough for my liking. It says that the Parliament
“encourages active engagement with other delegations to deliver the message that action on climate change is both necessary and urgent”.
My amendment is designed to show that, on climate change, unlike in some areas of policy, the Government needs to work closely with colleagues in the UK to achieve its objective.
Will the member give way?
I was going to develop the point, but I will take an intervention.
I thought that it would be helpful if I indicated that the Government is minded to support the amendment in Alex Johnstone’s name and indeed the Labour amendment, now that we have heard that the Government is not to finance everything in the RPP.
On co-operation in the United Kingdom, it was good to hear a minister who had nice things to say about his counterparts in and the leadership of the Government in the south. David Cameron has participated in that regard. As the minister said, he has thanked the Scottish ministers for their active involvement in and contribution to the debate so far. Of course, it was the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government in the south, under David Cameron’s leadership, which invited the Scottish ministers to participate in last year’s conference—the first time that they had received such an invitation—and which will ensure that the Scottish ministers participate in the next one.
However, there are challenges. When we consider the carbon emissions of countries such as China, India and the United States, it is clear that it is essential that we find ways to secure more agreement than has been achieved hitherto. The UK Government has made a point of keeping the foreign aid budget high, but in many cases the funds do not deal with climate change issues. We must ensure that we give economic support to countries that require our assistance if they are to achieve their objectives—I am talking about smaller countries; countries where there is a real problem need to be negotiated with hard.
However, there are problems with the Scottish Government’s policy. Many people will say that the overreliance on wind as a source of renewable energy is beginning to cause hostility in some key areas of the country. In spite of the fact that I have tried to take a pragmatic approach to wind farms, I continue to get an increasing level of hostility from people in the areas where wind farms are most prevalent.
The Scottish Government has ambitious hopes for carbon capture and storage, but those hopes are perhaps misplaced when we see public resistance to such a development at Hunterston and when funding requirements exceed the funds that are available in the case of the Longannet plant.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in his last minute.
I am just coming to a close, I am afraid.
There is also the question of why the Government continues with its irrational hostility towards the nuclear industry, which could have a much bigger part to play in achieving our 2050 objectives if it was simply accepted that it could do that job.
I believe that we need a pragmatic, cost-effective and economically sustainable approach to fulfilling our objectives under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. We need to move forward in such a way that we do not throw good money after bad but concentrate our limited resources in the areas that will achieve the greatest result. For that reason, I have some difficulty with the Labour amendment, which appears to be an open-ended spending commitment. We need a cost-effective, pragmatic approach. If we do it in any other way, we could run out of money before we achieve our objectives.
I move amendment S4M-01406.2, to insert at end:
“and encourages collaboration with other UK delegates to agree a common policy in advance of the conference.”
15:26
The debate about Scotland’s international role in Durban needs to focus more on the international opportunities. Many non-governmental organisations remind us endlessly in their briefing papers of the need for better delivery on our own targets, but they do not always applaud the progress that we have made. I want to show how, through our actions here, we can work along with our international partners to underpin world-wide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientists’ measurements of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions are as follows. In 2009, the emissions—including emissions from international aviation and shipping and with the figures adjusted to take account of trading in the European Union emission trading scheme—amounted to 52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is 27.6 per cent lower than in the 1990 base year. Between 2008 and 2009, they were reduced by 3.8 per cent, or 2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Ignoring the effects of trading in the EU ETS, Scottish greenhouse gas emissions fell by 7 per cent between 2008 and 2009, and by 29 per cent between 1990—the base year—and 2009. We are warned that in 2010-11—it takes a long while to get the results—there has been a small increase; however, we have made plans for an average reduction of 3 per cent per year between now and 2020. It is important that people in Scotland grasp the fact that the action will be cumulative.
The Scottish Parliament must encourage other nations to see the ways in which our groundbreaking proposals and policies are setting out to achieve the ambitious targets that Scotland has set. However, meeting legally binding climate change targets is challenging. For example, some recent calculations by NGOs of cumulative emissions reductions, as opposed to year-on-year savings, got rather muddled up; Stop Climate Chaos Scotland has apologised to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for drawing wrong conclusions at an earlier stage of our taking evidence on this year’s budget, which it originally described as putting us
“on a path for embarrassing failure.”
We are not on a path for failure; we are in the midst of success.
I turn to marine emissions. The RPP says that the Scottish Government is working with operators and the ports sector, particularly those that are receiving public support, as the improvements to the efficiency of our subsidised fleet are dependent on the pace of vessel replacement.
I understand that the Government is considering whether there is scope for more efficient powering of vessels in port through connection to shoreside power sources. The Government supports efforts for an international agreement on carbon emissions from shipping, and the battery-operated ferries that are under construction on the Clyde show that we have the potential to build a huge number of ships for commercial purposes to new designs just to meet the needs of our northern isles and Western Isles services. That has the potential to be a great new industry for Scotland.
We need an international agreement to be brokered at Durban so that no part of the world is disadvantaged by a cap-and-trade scheme for marine fuel. The EU carbon trading scheme is one model, but I hope that the Scottish Government will help delegates at the 17th conference of the parties to consider a United Nations-backed scheme that bears in mind the arguments of the Chamber of Shipping on those urgently needed agreements.
Peatlands have been mentioned. Scotland holds a special place among the 175 nations globally that have peatlands, as it has 80 per cent of the peatlands in the UK, which is in the top 10 countries in the world. Some of the world’s best blanket bogs are found in Scotland, including the flow country, which is in my constituency. There is considerable international interest in our peatland restoration work at that site and substantial income goes to the area from EU LIFE funds in recognition of its environmental significance. Scotland’s deepest peatlands store about 6,500 megatonnes of carbon, which is 10 times the amount of carbon that is stored in the whole of the UK’s forest biomass. A loss of only 1 per cent of Scotland’s peat would equal annual greenhouse gas emissions of about 57 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent. Conversely, restoring damaged peatland could greatly reduce emissions and contribute to meeting Scotland’s climate change targets.
Peatlands are important for carbon reduction and clean water, and Scotland has a key role in consequent research work. The centre for ecology and hydrology has a greenhouse gas monitoring station in the flow country. The environmental research institute in Thurso, under the leadership of Professor Stuart Gibb, is creating a hub for that cutting-edge technology. There is a clear community of interest in peatlands across a wide range of organisations. We need to muster the considerable peatland expertise and resources in the public and private sectors in Scotland and across the UK and Europe to lead to a UN-backed order at Durban to measure land-management emissions in every country.
To achieve the required scale and urgency of action, the UN must recognise the challenges of the current economic climate and deliver the urgent actions at COP17. That is the outlook that we want from our ministerial presence as part of the UK delegation in Durban, with the support of all parties in the Parliament and some of our vigilant NGOs.
15:33
As members have highlighted, the international climate conference in Durban is a seismic event that affects the future of our planet and all living beings. It is our responsibility as humans to be sure to lay the foundations for a legally binding and fair deal for the future. Perhaps I reiterate the obvious, but the complexities of the global negotiations merit the attention of all of us. I will share some thoughts on leadership, community support and global connections.
Scotland has the respect of the world for the vision that has been shown and the action that has been taken in having the first climate change legislation with binding targets. That has been shaped in part by Scottish Labour, with cross-party support, and by the current Administration. As part of the UK delegation to Durban, the Scottish Government can take a significant lead, and I wish ministers well with that. However, it is essential that Scotland lead by example, so I will, in spite of our reputation, highlight one or two areas of concern.
In the vision section of “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2010-2022: The Report on Proposals and Policies” the Scottish Government states:
“Walking or cycling to work or school will become increasingly popular. Changes in travel habits and other actions to tackle climate change go hand in hand with important health, social and environmental benefits: reducing the incidence and economic costs of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, depression, and local pollution.”
However, as has been highlighted by Sarah Boyack, according to WWF Scotland’s calculations,
“motorway and trunk road spending is up by 25%”
but
“active travel equates to less than 1% of the transport budget.”
I have been approached by South Scotland constituents who are alarmed by the cut in the active travel budget. Will the minister please look again at that budget, so that the warm words of the vision are matched by real support for initiatives in communities?
I, too, have received a great deal of correspondence on that issue. Does the member acknowledge that the £50 million future transport fund over this session of Parliament is a new funding line that is entirely for sustainable travel? That should have been taken into account in the calculations that have been presented to parliamentarians by NGOs.
I acknowledge what Marco Biagi is saying, but the fact remains that there has been a cut of 45 per cent in the actual budget, which is a cause for concern.
Leadership is also needed in energy efficiency. The Scottish Government is in the bottom half of the league table in energy efficiency in public buildings, according to a Department of Energy and Climate Change survey. In his closing remarks, will the minister shed light on that? The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body lay in 246th position; we should all take responsibility for making changes in that.
I add my voice to the 15,000-strong Friends of the Earth petition to the UK Government, on its plans to slash financial support to communities that plan to install solar electricity systems. The decision has caused difficulty for many of my constituents who have already paid deposits, and there is now uncertainty about future initiatives. I know that the minister, Fergus Ewing, has already written to the UK Government on the issue; will he update Parliament? It is a ruthless, sudden and ill-advised decision by the UK Government to change the cut-off point for lower feed-in tariffs to December 12.
If we are to continue to lead by example, the Scottish Government must go on supporting communities and householders in their quest for a sustainable future. I know that the Scottish Government will do that.
Only last Saturday, I heard of an innovative plan to create a woodland allotment in Peebles—well, not in Peebles itself, but the plan is by people from Peebles. The residents will work together to tap into the wood life cycle to get fuel, while keeping fit and even, perhaps, providing work opportunities. Innovation is key, so when communities are being adventurous, I ask the minister to ensure that financial support is imaginative and not too restrictive in its criteria.
The minister has highlighted our moral obligation. It is vital that we continue to make connections around the globe so that we can be in dialogue with other countries in the quest for a fair solution to climate change beyond the Durban negotiations. As parliamentarians, we are all in a position to do that. I would like to share a small example. In the summer recess, some of us welcomed a young Chinese group from a project at the University of Nottingham. I was asked to share thoughts, through an interpreter, about the economics of climate change, and I am now building future dialogue with members of the group. They were especially interested in issues at local government level.
In developing the complex global negotiations about a fair way forward for developing countries, it is my belief that, post Durban, we can all take responsibility for taking forward connections. At a time of economic concern, I am reassured when the minister says that we must be more rather than less innovative.
We need to keep our nerve in Scotland, in supporting our communities in their innovative quests for a sustainable life, in developing skills and green jobs, and in helping vulnerable people to adapt to climate change. Then we can truly speak out at Durban and beyond. I wish the minister well as part of the UK delegation. As he says, time is short, and it is our moral responsibility to act.
15:39
There is a pessimistic backdrop to the upcoming discussions in Durban that is deeply disappointing. Not just one, but a series of recent reports have reinforced—if reinforcement were needed—the pressing need at the very least to extend the commitment period of the Kyoto protocol, which is due to expire next year. That will allow time to agree a binding treaty, to come into force by 2015 at the latest, that will bring inside the tent countries that the protocol does not cover. However, it seems that some of the world’s richest countries still do not get it on climate change, or simply cannot summon the will to address the situation.
Following the failure of the Copenhagen summit in 2009, it appears, sadly, that no new global climate agreement will be reached before 2016, at the earliest. Such an agreement would not come into play before 2020, which is eight years from now.
The International Energy Agency’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, and leading United Nations climate change official, Christiana Figueres, have both warned that time is running out if we are to keep a temperature increase below 2°C. Worryingly, however, that may be understating the seriousness of the situation with which we are confronted, because it has also been suggested that the chances of restricting the increase in global temperature to 2°C above 1990 levels are already all but gone.
The IEA’s “World Energy Outlook 2011” publication tells us that if recent climate change commitments are implemented by Governments only in what it terms “a cautious manner”, we are heading in a direction of travel that is leading to an average long-term temperature increase of 3.5°C. If Governments renege on those commitments, we are looking at an increase of 6°C or worse.
There was more bad news this week when we learned from the World Meteorological Organization’s “Greenhouse Gas Bulletin” that the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new high in 2010 and that the rate of increase has accelerated. However, it appears that leading nations are planning to turn a deaf ear or a blind eye—characterise it as you like—to those warnings and to the predicted consequences that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change outlined a few weeks ago in a report that made clear the extent to which continuing global warming will produce increases in extreme weather events.
For members who have not read the IPCC report—given the volume of material that we each have to digest weekly, I realise that that may be the majority of us—I will summarise its most pertinent and worrying points. Looking ahead to the unfolding 21st century, it predicts that there is a 99 to 100 per cent chance that the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes will increase globally; that it is 66 to 100 per cent certain that the frequency of heavy rain or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy precipitation will increase over many parts of the globe; and that there is a 66 to 100 per cent chance that average tropical cyclone wind speed will increase. It says with 66 to 100 per cent confidence that droughts in some areas will intensify, and it predicts with 99 to 100 per cent certainty that coastal erosion will continue and that rising average sea levels will, along with increased cyclone speeds, pose a significant threat to small tropical island states.
I, as other members have, read the Scotsman story this morning on Lord Krebs’s report on climate change and its impact on Scotland. Of course, who would say that the prospect of fewer winter deaths, lower heating bills, fresh business opportunities and a boost to tourism would be unwelcome? However, along with those comes increased risk of flooding and storms. In any case, should we not be looking at the bigger picture and, in particular, at the overwhelmingly detrimental impact that climate change is having on the third world?
On a global scale, so much—much more than has been done so far—needs to be done. It is an opportunity for Scotland, with our world-leading climate change legislation, to lead the way. As Stop Climate Chaos Scotland summed things up in its briefing:
“It is therefore of utmost importance that ... Scotland continues to set an example to others. Other countries, some of which are on the cusp of legislating on climate change, are looking towards the Scottish example to see what is possible and achievable.”
Of course, leading the way means walking the walk as well as talking the talk. It was therefore heartening to hear Stewart Stevenson’s response when he was challenged on the issue during an evidence session with the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. I hope that he repeats that message in Durban and tells the world that Scotland remains absolutely committed to meeting our climate change targets; that it is not acceptable to adopt a “We’ll move if you do” approach to the issue; that the world is past the point at which that sort of conditionality will address climate change; and that somebody must seize the initiative. He can point to the progress that is being made towards fully unlocking the potential of offshore wind, tidal and wave power as evidence of Scotland’s commitment to delivering.
I agree with Sarah Boyack and Rob Gibson on the importance of seizing the opportunity that is presented by our peatlands to propel Scotland towards fulfilling its emissions-cutting targets. Fully exploiting the natural carbon storage option that that represents is a work in progress. First, we need Durban to agree to count carbon that is stored in peatlands, although it is anticipated that that will happen. We also need to agree on a counting mechanism, which it is anticipated will happen a year from now. We need to gather the evidence that shows the extent to which temporary methane gas emissions, following on from peatland restoration, militate against what we seek to achieve. What a chance that offers Scotland to cement its place at the forefront of battling climate change.
15:45
Alex Johnstone remarked earlier on the familiar faces in chamber this afternoon and it is something of an unexpected pleasure to be back speaking on climate change for the Lib Dems. I and, I am sure, the minister, thought that those days were behind me, but I am afraid that my colleague Jim Hume is away on a humanitarian mission this week, so here I am again.
I see that not much has changed in the few months since I last spoke on climate change. The Government is still quick to trumpet our “world-leading” climate change bill, but is rather more circumspect when it comes to actually putting in place the measures that will enable us to meet our ambitious targets. I will turn to that in a moment; however, I start by welcoming the fact that Scotland will be represented on the UK Government’s delegation to the COP17 conference in Durban next week. It is important to recognise the work that has been done by Chris Huhne at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, not only in driving the UK Government forward to ensure that it is the “greenest” ever, but also for the pro-active and inclusive approach that he has taken in engaging with the Scottish Government.
The Government’s motion is right to highlight that action on climate change should not be seen as a burden but, rather, as an opportunity for innovation and growth. Scotland has the opportunity to develop itself as a green energy powerhouse, and it is right that we are able to share our experiences with the rest of the world. As has been said already today, the fight against climate change cannot succeed on the basis of action being taken in just one country. The conference of the parties summit is a vital forum for engagement, and I am pleased that it is one in which Scotland can participate fully.
The motion this afternoon also notes the urgent need for action. I fully endorse that sentiment. Early action is absolutely vital—global action that will mitigate and limit the worst effects of climate change, and the action that we need to take here to meet the targets in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. On that, I was interested to see the minister’s appearance at the Rural Affairs, Environment and Climate Change Committee yesterday to discuss the use of carbon credits towards targets from 2013.
From the beginning of our work on the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, everyone involved was clear that domestic effort must be the focus of our efforts. The use of carbon units should be a last resort: indeed, we chose not to allow them to be used towards the 2010, 2011 and 2012 targets at all. I recognise, of course, that in setting the latest limits, the minister is following the advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change and that the availability of carbon units does not necessarily mean that they will be used. Indeed, despite the relatively low price that was mentioned by the minister yesterday, I must trust that the Government will not be tempted to rely on the credits as an easy way to hit our targets.
I am grateful to Alison McInnes for giving way, but I am slightly concerned that she says we “must trust ... the Government” not to do that. If we want the Government not to do it and the Government says that it does not want to do it, why should we pass an order that will allow the Government to do it?
Patrick Harvie will know that I am keen to ensure that we do not allow the use of carbon units at all, but we are where we are. I said, “I trust”—I do not mean that I really believe that that is the case. I genuinely hope that I am proved wrong and that the Government does not intend to use the units if at all possible. Our emissions are our own responsibility and purchasing credits cannot be looked at as a substitute for real domestic action.
Actually, it is not the credits themselves that I would like to touch on but, rather, a worrying detail that is mentioned in the advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change. It notes that, given the current EU-wide target and the current policies that are outlined in the RPP, our 2015, 2016 and 2017 emissions targets would be missed. Even if we add the maximum effect of all of the RPP’s proposals, the 2017 target would still be missed, and that is the best-case scenario, so to speak. For the RPP’s proposals and policies to become a reality, they need to be properly budgeted for; I am afraid that, on current evidence, that is simply not the case.
Transport is one of the biggest contributors to the non-traded sector of emissions in Scotland, yet the Government has budgeted, by some fairly generous calculations, just £30 million for low carbon transport measures in 2012-13. Friends of the Earth Scotland estimates that, over the three years that are covered by the latest spending review, funding for sustainable travel is barely a tenth of what is needed to fully fund the RPP and barely 5 per cent of the amount that will be spent on roads.
Will the member give way?
I am almost at the end of my speech. There seems to be a worrying trend across the spending review: a real-terms cut in support for sustainable and active travel, in support for bus services, in funding for the zero waste initiative, and so on.
There are tough decisions to make, but it is up to the Government to decide what its priorities are. Ensuring that Scotland’s message on climate change to other countries has substance and is not empty rhetoric should be one priority.
Some movement has taken place on energy efficiency in homes. I would like action to go further still, but I welcome the increase in the budget for energy efficiency measures. However, I will sound a small note of caution. My experience of a recent visit at home from a local company that is working on a home insulation scheme highlighted that people are still largely unaware of the financial support that is available to help to improve energy efficiency and, thereby, to reduce emissions at home. The Government still needs to address that lack of public engagement.
As the minister will well remember, we spent a great deal of time last summer on ensuring that the RPP was comprehensive and ambitious. It is the sort of document that might well serve as a best-practice example at next week’s summit, but it will be of use only if the Government has the will to follow it through.
I think that we all agree that we should be proud of the action that we have taken on climate change and that engaging positively with other COP17 participants is important. I echo Sarah Boyack’s sentiments: we must work with other nations and encourage them to do their bit to reduce emissions, but it is just as vital that we do not become complacent in our efforts here at home.
15:51
I am pleased to speak in this important debate. As we have heard, the Durban conference is a key step on the way to achieving in the next few years a legally binding global deal on climate change targets and, thereby, a commitment to a low-carbon future. As we have also heard and as the minister said, such a deal is—sadly—not expected to emerge from the Durban summit. Rather, it is hoped that the summit will make sufficient progress to pave the way for reaching such a global deal by perhaps 2015.
In the context of the Durban summit and the on-going international efforts to reduce emissions and progress to a low-carbon future, Scotland has an important role to play. We have heard that Scotland is widely recognised internationally on the basis of the leadership and ambition that it has shown with its world-leading climate change legislation. Since the Parliament unanimously adopted the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill on 24 June 2009, Scotland has actively participated in the global debate and has shown by example what can be done.
I understand that the Minister for Environment and Climate Change has held bilateral talks on climate change with international colleagues 14 times since May, in advance of the Durban summit. It is to be hoped that our ambitious approach will be adopted elsewhere. The minister has emphasised in his international discussions that climate change should be viewed as an opportunity rather than a problem. We in Scotland are showing by example that a low-carbon economy can lead to jobs, trade, investment and growth. We are all aware of the significant recent investments in the low-carbon economy that we have managed to attract to Scotland, to the tune of £750 million.
An ambitious approach is all very well, but does the member accept that if we fail to resource the RPP properly and cannot achieve the target, Scotland will be left with egg on its face and will look a bit silly internationally?
I am puzzled by that intervention. When a comment along the same lines was made earlier, the minister’s clear response was that the RPP is properly resourced but that it should be recalled that the drive must be made not simply by the Government but by all of us, including the private sector in particular.
I pay tribute to the significant efforts of our NGOs, which seek to influence the international debate. They have worked hard and engaged actively with parliamentarians and with NGOs and activists in other countries to bring Scotland’s ambitious Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 to the forefront of best-practice discussions. I wish our NGOs continuing success in those discussions.
A debate on climate change raises the important issue of individual responsibility. It is axiomatic that, if individual behaviour does not change, we will all fail. I submit, however, that the most effective way of changing individual behaviour is to bring people with us. I believe that the Scottish Government, in particular, has recognised that with its successful climate challenge fund initiative, which seeks to facilitate community-driven projects on climate change. That initiative has been going for some years now and has, I understand, supported about 345 grass-roots projects.
I have direct personal experience of a very successful community project that benefited from the fund: the Comrie Development Trust’s Comrie carbon challenge project. I declare an interest at this point, because I did some work for it some years ago, which appears in my entry in the register of members’ interests. In Comrie, where I live—members will be pleased to hear that it is a very can-do village in its approach to important issues—there has been a noticeable change in people’s behaviour and I believe that that behavioural change is continuing apace. In a significant number of cases, people’s initial scepticism has given way to their embracing enthusiastically carbon-reduction measures, and to a general awareness that, especially in these difficult financial times, it does indeed pay to be green.
In the light of the climate challenge fund’s important role, I am very pleased indeed to see that, notwithstanding the significant Westminster cuts that are being imposed on the Scottish Parliament, we in the Scottish National Party are managing to maintain climate challenge funding over the spending review period.
We have a great case to make on the world stage; we should not be the slightest bit afraid of doing that. Of course, we must do all that we can here, but we have a good case to take to other countries. We recognise that a key plank of a successful climate change policy is in bringing the individual with us.
However, I want to make one remark that is not so positive, which is on the discriminatory system for transmission charging. Until the UK Government stops dithering and delaying on that important issue, there is a serious risk that Scotland’s renewable energy industry will be sabotaged. We cannot allow that to happen. If it does, there will be impacts not just on our huge potential in renewables. We will also fail to meet our climate challenge targets, as will the rest of the United Kingdom.
15:57
The importance of the developed world’s participation in the UN summits on climate change rests on its ability to deliver on its climate change targets. Trust is the linchpin for states the world over to be able to negotiate compromise and agree the global reductions targets that are essential to sustaining our natural environment. Without the confidence that Scotland as a developed nation is serious about reducing its emissions targets, there is little incentive for developing nations to address their demand for finite natural resources as they, too, seek to industrialise.
This year’s conference in Durban offers the opportunity for Scotland to showcase to the world what action it is taking to fulfil its ambitious commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. That target is world leading and, as such, lends itself to substantial scrutiny. Without proper implementation through progressive policies that are underpinned by sufficient financial commitment, we risk hindering, rather than helping, negotiations in Durban.
As Sarah Boyack pointed out, there are already signs that the targets risk being missed. Preliminary figures show that instead of having locked in emissions savings from 2009, emissions in Scotland rose again in 2010. The budget and the RPP do not go far enough to reverse that and put us back on track towards achieving what is one of this Government’s flagship policies, to which parties across the Parliament signed up.
Most of Scotland’s carbon emissions emanate from our homes, but investment in demand-reduction programmes has declined. In the 2010-11 budget, funding of £71 million was available for programmes such as the energy assistance package and the universal home insulation scheme. This year, however, that funding stands at just £48 million. That means that more, not fewer, of Scotland’s homes will run inefficiently, adding significantly to energy demand and our carbon footprint.
Nearly 20 per cent of Scotland’s carbon emissions stem from transport, yet this Government has moved away from funding policies that will help to meet emissions targets and towards policies that actively undermine them. The sustainable and active travel budget line has been reduced from £25 million to £16 million, but spending on trunk roads and motorways is set to increase by 25 per cent.
Will the member give way?
I will make this point; then I will give way.
Just this week, I came across that kind of policy in action. Up in Dundee, we have an issue with a school bus that has been withdrawn. The council says that it has no power over whether the service should be reinstated and that it is the responsibility of the bus companies. In fact, that illustrates a failure by the Scottish National Party properly to fund public transport mechanisms, which means that many more families will have to rely on their cars to get their children to school. Indeed, the convener of education agreed with me that more bus regulation would help the public transport system in this country. I commend her comments to the SNP Government.
First, the member is describing not a school bus but a bus that goes past schools. School buses are something different. Does she agree that initiatives such as hydrogen buses in Aberdeen, and schemes such as Getabout, run by Nestrans—I declare an interest as a former chair of Nestrans—are ensuring that active and sustainable travel continues?
It sounds as though the scheme in Aberdeen is a good idea, but that is not happening down in Dundee, where bus regulation is badly needed. Again, I commend to the Government the proposal for bus regulation, which the SNP convener of education in Dundee agrees would be an excellent idea.
There is less investment in transport methods that reduce impact on the environment, and more in those that do not. Similarly, although the RPP identifies that the proposals for eco-driving, travel planning and cycling infrastructure investment require funding of £714 million until 2014, the spending review does not seem to provide even 10 per cent of that. Without adequate funding, those policies turn from genuine mechanisms for reducing demand and achieving emissions targets into empty rhetoric.
I understand the fixed budget of the Scottish Government, but I also understand that it was well aware of the figures before the election, when it was committing to the RPP. The imperative to reduce Scotland’s emissions is a legislative commitment that the Government signed up to and has a duty to deliver. It cannot be ignored.
We will go to Durban as the nation with the most ambitious target in the world, but only if the Scottish Government adopts a more innovative approach in its climate change policies by ensuring that schemes that are aimed at demand reduction are meaningfully funded will we reduce Scotland’s carbon emissions and make a substantial contribution to the international climate change talks.
16:03
I welcome this important debate on the negotiations in Durban next week. The seriousness of climate change is not underestimated by our Government, this Parliament or the people of Scotland. The challenges, as we all know, are considerable.
Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency published its “World Energy Outlook 2011” document. As Graeme Dey has already said, that report highlighted that, if we are to achieve the long-term goal of limiting the rise in global temperature to a manageable two degrees, urgent action needs to be taken to reduce CO2 emissions on a global scale. The report makes it clear that the window for introducing effective action is closing quickly. If that vital long-term target is to be met—and the risks are increasing that it will not be—global emissions must peak by 2020 and decline thereafter. For that crucial target to be met, progress has to be made at next week’s climate change conference in Durban.
Climate change is often viewed as solely a problem for our future generations. However, the reality is that the damaging effects are already having a human impact. From risks to agricultural production in Africa to coastal erosion in South Uist, the effects are real and we must act not as individual nations but as one planet together.
We have heard from various members about the positive and world-leading steps that Scotland is taking in the fight against climate change, and it is right that we do so. Scotland has some of the world’s most progressive and ambitious climate change legislation. As a nation we are blessed with energy resources from the old but still vital technologies in oil, coal and gas, to the newer, greener developing technologies in wind, hydro, wave, tidal and solar. We should be viewing those technologies as an opportunity not just to cut back on our carbon emissions, but to boost our economy and create jobs. It is estimated that there are already 10,000 jobs in the clean fossil fuels and carbon capture and storage industries in Scotland alongside 3,000 additional jobs in renewables. That is just the tip of the iceberg, and we are likely to see an increase many times over in the years ahead. This year alone has seen the announcement of more than £160 million in investment by renewable energy developers, with the potential to add 400 more jobs.
As we look ahead to next week’s 17th UN conference of the parties, Scotland has a positive message to take to Durban: implementing actions that limit climate change is not only essential for the future wellbeing of our societies, but good for stimulating economic growth and creating jobs. That positive message is urgently needed. It is clear that, at best, the Durban conference will provide a stepping stone to a successor to the Kyoto treaty, which expires at the end of 2012. However, although everyone now agrees that time is running out to have a new version of Kyoto in place before the end of 2012, it is imperative that progress is made in Durban on preparing the ground for a new treaty to be signed by 2015. Part of that progress could be in securing agreement that a second emissions target commitment period will commence in 2012 upon the expiry of the first. Doubtless even that interim measure will be difficult to agree with those seeking a binding treaty to succeed Kyoto, including the 27 members of the EU, being reluctant to move forward unless the world’s largest emitters, who remain outside the Kyoto framework, undertake to participate in a future, legally binding emissions reduction framework.
There is always the risk that the failure of the Durban conference to achieve a comprehensive agreement on the successor to the Kyoto protocol will reduce pressure on some Governments to adhere to the climate change targets that have previously been adopted. Needless to say, that would be a disastrous reaction. Accordingly, I was pleased that the European Parliament last week adopted a resolution underlining the EU’s commitment to the Kyoto protocol and that the EU should give public and unequivocal support to its continuation at the Durban conference. That resolution also made clear the European Parliament’s belief that the European Union must raise its game regardless of the commitments of the carbon giants of the United States of America and China, by committing to a 30 per cent instead of 20 per cent target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. I was also pleased to note that in the resolution, like this Parliament before it, the European Parliament recognised the key links between combating climate change and achieving higher rates of sustainable economic growth. In Scotland, we are demonstrating that investing in green technologies is a key source of growth and employment, even in the tough economic conditions in which we find ourselves.
The Scottish Government has shown that it is ready and willing to take a lead in implementing measures that are designed to make a real impact on tackling climate change. In Scotland, we have shown that we are prepared to lead by example. I hope that the EU will do likewise. It is vital that the reluctance of some countries to commit fully to an ambitious, comprehensive and legally binding international framework that is designed to tackle climate change should not be used by the EU as a reason to lessen its commitment to the endeavour. I hope that Stewart Stevenson will take that message from this Parliament to Durban next week. I urge the UK Government to fully endorse that message.
16:06
I begin by putting on the record the intervention that I intended to make earlier. Some claims have been made about funding that cannot really go unchallenged. One was about the active and sustainable travel spend, but the other was about the motorway and trunk roads budget. It is going up, but the level 3 figures show that the main increases come from the Forth replacement crossing, an increase in winter preparedness and rising private finance initiative payments. If the Opposition members would like to say which of those they disagree with in their concluding remarks, I would be most grateful.
I will be happy to do that.
I think that I can already guess which one Mr Harvie disagrees with.
I am part of the way into my speech and I have not managed to mention the constitution. Every sentence that I use has to have a verb, a noun and a plug for independence, so let me get on to that.
For me, the Durban conference casts a lot of doubt on the argument that the world is interdependent and the nation state is outdated. The 21st century state looks like the 19th century state to a greater extent than it is usually given credit for. Back in 1884, heads of Government met in Berlin, decided the future of the world and carved it up between them. Now, 127 years later, their successors will divide it up in a somewhat different way, but the future of the world is still their responsibility. They might have domestic pressures and cross-border influences, but it is still them—the heads of Government—who commit their states to action. When corporate and civic leaders also have seats around the table, as was the case at Davos, it is called a forum. The status of nation state is still a privileged one to have.
Although I welcome the fact that the UK Government is permitting Scotland to participate in Durban, I look forward to the day when Scotland can participate directly in such events, when we will be able to express whatever views we hold rather than speak only when we agree with the full member state. That said, I welcome the news that we can find common ground on the issue.
We have a fantastic story to tell. Having achieved a 28.9 per cent cut in emissions by 2009—that figure was obtained using a slightly different measure to the one that Rob Gibson cited—we should achieve the Kyoto target with room to spare. We should remember that the Kyoto protocol asked for a cut of just 5.2 per cent from the 1990 baseline by 2012. In doing so, it was criticised for not going far enough, but there were those for whom it still went too far. It has been ratified by 191 countries, but Afghanistan, Andorra and South Sudan have joined the usual suspect of the US Government in the non-ratification camp.
It is easy to rush to reflexive condemnation of the US Government, but not all the countries that ratified the protocol have delivered. Canada’s emissions have not fallen since 1990; in fact, they have risen by 24 per cent. The vast majority of that rise is accounted for by just one province, Alberta, whose centre right government has been unmoved by environmental concerns. The lesson of all that is that deeds, not words, are what matter; they are what the developing world—the underdeveloped world—is calling for.
As my colleague Graeme Dey explained, the consequences of not acting would be stark. Friends of the Earth states in its briefing that the RPP, which is a fantastic document,
“cannot afford to sit on a shelf”.
I agree, although I think that we would disagree on the extent to which that is happening. I hope that the Scottish Government will engage with those concerns, perhaps by updating the climate change delivery plan or providing information in some other way to ensure that there is no doubt whatever among the wider public about the clarity of the Government’s intent, whether on active and sustainable travel or carbon credits. I certainly have no doubt about its direction of travel.
In ecological terms, we are the luckiest country in Europe when it comes to economic factor endowment, and we should not overlook that. Two or three hundred years ago, flat land was the prime property; now the rugged landscape and seascape of Scotland can come into their own. We hold the low-carbon investment conference, and I hope that the green investment bank will soon come to my constituency of Edinburgh Central, although I would settle for it coming to one of the neighbouring constituencies—I am not precious about that.
I welcome the investment that Scotland has secured in renewable energy, but I probably speak for many when I say that I would like to see a few more home-grown companies taking advantage of the opportunities that exist. My constituency is benefiting from improvements to housing and public transport and from the climate challenge fund and the jobs that are coming with renewables.
I note that, in August, the Scottish Government expressed an intention to consult on legislation to reduce the use of plastic bags. I hope that the minister looks closely at the option of a bag levy, the potential for which was reserved to the Government under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, because as well as reducing landfill, such a levy could generate funds that could be directed towards spend-to-save measures—such as home insulation—that make financial and environmental sense, but which need a bit of up-front investment. That is an example of suggesting action and suggesting how it might be paid for—many members would do well to learn that lesson.
I support action on climate change not just because it is the right thing for the economy or because of steps such as those I have outlined but because it is the right thing to do. Whether it is expressed through a moral duty or framed under the economic urgencies of the present, what matters is the underlying commitment and intention for real action. The heads of state at such conferences can sometimes give the impression of a nervous schoolboy afraid to volunteer or of a card sharp eager to pull some quick wins. If Scotland can be a voice of reason, however constrained, it becomes our moral duty not just to act, but, by example, to encourage others to do so too.
16:15
I wish the minister all the best for his time in Durban. I know that he has a strong personal commitment to the agenda, and I hope that as part of the UK delegation he will help to push other countries towards the legally binding international cut in carbon emissions that we so desperately need. I hope that the UK delegation will also support developing countries to adapt to climate change to deal with the problems that Sarah Boyack so powerfully described at the beginning of her speech.
I am sure that the minister will tell others of our landmark climate change legislation, and we can all be justifiably proud of the act that we passed two years ago. However, the key to the act has always been in the implementation, and it is right that Sarah Boyack and others have shifted the focus of the debate towards the action that is being taken now, as that should be our primary concern.
At the beginning of his speech, the minister talked about our unique competitive advantage in the low-carbon economy. We can all be grateful for that and the great opportunities that we have in areas such as wind and tidal power. I commend the Government’s enthusiasm for renewable energy and I always support the Government in what it is doing on that. I was particularly pleased a couple of weeks ago when at question time the First Minister referred to a memorandum of understanding between Scottish Enterprise and local partners to develop Leith docks as a hub for renewable energy. Leith docks would be an ideal location for developing the turbines that are necessary for offshore wind.
I say in passing that the Scottish Government should be clear that the large-scale biomass plant that Forth Ports wants to go along with the offshore wind facility is negative from a climate change point of view. I hope that the Government can make that clear. Even if a small amount of heat from the development could be used, its consequences for climate change would be negative, not just because of the mass transportation of timber but because of the increase in emissions from large-scale biomass plants for many decades.
If Scotland is strong in renewables, transport policy is at the opposite end of the spectrum. I have long regarded transport as the Achilles’ heel of our climate change activity. In its budget submission to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, Transform Scotland was slightly less polite than I have been, saying that transport is
“the basket case of climate policy”.
There certainly seems to be a contradiction between the rhetoric of the RPP and the budgetary choices that have been made in the transport budget.
Transport is the second largest emissions sector, accounting for just over a quarter of our emissions, and yet recent trends continue upwards. Stop Climate Chaos Scotland tells us that the 2012-13 budget provides not more than 6 per cent of the funding measures required by the RPP. Although I accept what the minister said about the role of the private sector, I do not believe that it can fill such a large gap.
Two thirds of the transport emissions come from road transport, and yet the Government continues to be obsessed with road building. Marco Biagi referred to the road budget. I should tell him that the rising PFI charges are linked not just to roads that have already been commissioned but to the new roads that the Scottish Government is planning.
I had an interesting exchange during an Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee meeting with Alex Neil, who was trying to argue that building the M74 was helpful for our climate change objectives. People can take whatever view they like about the pros and cons of that project from an economic point of view, but it is a bit absurd to see a road that generates more traffic as helping our climate change objectives.
Will Malcolm Chisholm give way on that point?
I am afraid that I will be short of time. I will give way if I have time, but I need to deal with the transport budget in more detail.
Active travel was highlighted not only by a report from one of the Parliament’s committees in 2009 but by the SNP’s manifesto, which promised
“to increase the proportion of transport spending that goes on low-carbon”
and active travel. However, as Sarah Boyack reminded us, the sustainable and active travel budget line is down 45 per cent in next year’s budget.
Sustrans has told the Parliament that it will get nothing next year, although one of the five transport milestones in the RPP is that at least 10 per cent of all journeys should be made by bicycle. That will be impossible with the funding cuts.
The freight facilities grant has also been abolished, although the RPP emphasises the modal shift of freight.
Although there is a ring-fenced cycling, walking and safer streets budget for local authorities, which stands at £7.5 million for this year, there is no guarantee that it will be continued till next year. I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that it is continued.
I never like to ask the Government to spend large sums of money without saying where they should come from. The transport lines that I have mentioned are not large and, with small shifts of resources within the transport budget, it would be easy to ensure that the sustainable and active travel budget was maintained.
Marco Biagi made great play of the future transport fund, saying that it was £50 million. I accept that some of my former colleagues sometimes rolled up three years’ budgets into one, but the fact is that the future transport fund budget for next year is £3.25 million. That certainly does not cover the enormous gap in next year’s transport budget that Sarah Boyack and others described.
Mr Chisholm, come to a conclusion, please.
The conclusion is obvious: make small shifts in the transport budget and make sure that it contributes to combating climate change.
16:22
I am pleased to support the Government’s motion.
Although there is much scepticism regarding the concept of climate change in the UK—Graeme Dey referred to the article in today’s Scotsman—I have little doubt that such change is at work. I have taken the time to visit the Met Office in Edinburgh to see the predictions of its models and I encourage other members to do so. After hearing from the team there, I am convinced that fundamental changes in climate are already in train and that, if we are to blunt their impact, we must act now to limit global temperature rises to 2°C if at all possible.
If we fail to act, we will literally reap the wind. Not only will there be more frequent extreme weather events, but there will be greater pressure on global food and water supplies in the form of mass migrations driven by changing climates. The human cost of the increased incidence of what we currently regard as tropical illnesses should also not be underestimated.
As many members have said, developing countries are the most vulnerable to the impact of climate change. By 2020, up to 250 million people in Africa could be exposed to greater risk of water stress, and up to 1 billion people in Asia are thought to be at risk of water shortages by 2050. Some small island states, many of which are Commonwealth member states, face the possibility of complete inundation.
By 2030, developing countries will require between $28 billion and $67 billion in funds to enable them to adapt to climate change. That equates to 0.2 to 0.8 per cent of global investment flows or only 0.06 to 0.21 per cent of projected global GDP.
In central and south Asia, crop yields are predicted to fall by up to 30 per cent. Reduced crop yields in tropical areas will lead to an increased risk of hunger and climate-sensitive diseases. They will also put at risk Scotland’s food security and cause rising food prices in our shops. Although the impact is likely to be locally severe elsewhere in the world, it will affect us all—even those who have their heads in the sand, such as Lord Krebs, who was mentioned earlier.
We have a responsibility to address those global issues. Global CO2 levels, as measured by the World Meteorological Organization, have risen to 389ppm—the highest level recorded since 1750. There is also a worrying upward trend: 2009’s increase of 2.3ppm was considerably higher than the increases experienced in previous decades.
Globally, climate change is posing real threats, mainly to many smaller developing nations that are relatively poorly resourced to tackle them, but also to many of our major trading partners. One of those small states is the Maldives and, in December 2009, Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond and the President of the Maldives pledged to work together to tackle the impact of global warming. The Maldives, which lie off the coast of the Indian subcontinent, are made up of nearly 1,200 small islands, none of which is more than 2m or 6ft above sea level. As a result, the country is particularly vulnerable to the sort of rise in sea level associated with global warming.
When the South Australia Government awarded the First Minister the South Australia international climate change leadership award, it said—
I am glad that the member has mentioned the award given to the First Minister. Given that he was nominated for it by one of his own ministers, Fergus Ewing, will Mr Wheelhouse and the rest of the chamber unite with me in nominating Mr Ewing for the brown nose of the year award?
I would rather not comment on Mr Ewing’s nomination of the First Minister. Instead, I would rather use the words of those made the award, who said that Scotland is almost two thirds of the way towards achieving its target of reducing emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. I also point out that, by 2009, emissions had fallen by 27.6 per cent from the 1990 base year; Marco Biagi might have cited a slightly different figure in that respect, but that figure includes the effects of international aviation, shipping and participation in the EU emissions trading scheme.
The final draft of Scotland’s RPP, which a number of members have referred to, was published in March 2011. Current policies would deliver a 38 per cent reduction in emissions on 1990 base levels, with the remaining 4 per cent to be achieved through UK or EU enforced actions over which the Scottish Parliament currently—and I stress the word “currently”—has no authority. As President Nasheed of the Maldives said,
“We are inspired by Scotland’s commitment to low carbon growth. Scotland is an example for others to follow.”
Finally, in recent weeks, the Labour party has called for more money for further education colleges, the national health service and justice—and now it is calling for more money for sustainable and active travel. Perhaps, in closing, Labour members will tell us in detail where that money will come from.
16:27
It is clear that the political significance attached to climate change has come a very long way since previous decades when the Greens, who had been campaigning on such issues for many years, were dismissed as eccentrics. Now only those who live in denial, who indulge in conspiracy theories and who are hard-right economic libertarians are dismissed as such—[Interruption.] I am sure that Alex Johnstone more than any of us welcomes the progress that has been made.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s participation in the international discussions that will take place not just this year but, I hope, in future. However, these United Nations debates always bring a mixture of emotions. People do their best to sustain hope while preparing for the inevitable disappointment, and the strong acceptance that something must be done is often lost in negotiation and a failure to recognise that nature itself does not negotiate.
Clearly there is a need for a global binding agreement, not just a short-term fix—or what we might call a second Kyoto commitment period, which I would nevertheless welcome in the interim. We need a commitment to a timescale towards 2015, a legally binding treaty containing the implication that 2015 will be the global peak year for emissions and a commitment to global 80 per cent cuts by 2050. We also need movement on financing to ensure that low-carbon development can be available to poorer countries. Instead of making economic growth for the world’s rich countries our priority, we should be prioritising the eradication of poverty in the world’s poorer parts and making that compatible with the climate change programme.
There are sources of financing that we can put in place for that, but, sadly, the UK Government—the “greenest” Government in history—is doing its very best to prevent a financial transactions tax and taxes on high-carbon-emitting industries such as the aviation industry. The UK Government seems to be utterly disinterested in those opportunities. We need those taxes to finance a lot of that work and many of the other priorities that we hope will come out of the global negotiations.
Will any of this happen? Sadly, progress is likely to remain painfully slow. We are likely to see the continuation of a country-by-country approach in the period leading up to some future deal—and I hope that there will be a deal. In his opening speech, the minister spoke of the progress that he sees where countries see economic benefits to be gained. The great danger is that the conference will simply become an opportunity for countries to fall back on GDP and not CO2 as their priority, while countries that do not see an economic benefit will make no changes. Scotland’s credibility on the issue, like that of any other country, will come from actions, not targets. As Marco Biagi said, deeds are what count.
The minister said that Scotland
“is already securing competitive advantage”,
but that is not the same as cutting emissions. I cannot be the only person who remembers the clear commitment to a 3 per cent annual cut in Scotland’s CO2, and not just from when the climate change legislation was introduced. That was to be the commitment from the moment the SNP came to power but, sadly, it has not happened. I am afraid that saying that we are two thirds of the way towards a target is complacent. We have done the easy bit of the journey; the hard bit has not even begun. In fact, most of the emissions cuts that we have seen over the years have been the result of deindustrialisation and, in more recent years, recession.
Despite the commitment on paper for the Government not to use credits to meet our CO2 targets, an order has been introduced to allow that approach. If we do not want to use credits—the Government does not need to use them—let us reject that order.
Our consensus on the climate change legislation was powerful and rare. Not many countries in which there is a political debate about climate change manage to get that degree of consensus. Five political parties sought to make the bill better and stronger as it was considered, and they all lodged amendments and succeeded in getting them incorporated into the bill to strengthen it before it was passed. That is rare, but the consensus was limited to the aspiration, intention and targets. We have never achieved that consensus on actions.
I refer to Malcolm Chisholm’s comments on the transport budget and transport policy. Transport is an ideal example of where actual actions that have been taken for many years—not just under the current Administration but under its predecessor—have been out of kilter with climate change targets. If anybody—minister or not—wants to try to persuade me that the M74 extension is good in climate change terms, they will need to buy me a lot of drinks in the bar to make the effort.
Aside from supporting a good renewables programme, the Government has not recognised that increased renewable electricity generation does nothing in climate change terms unless it is used to phase out fossil fuels. We have heard from Fergus Ewing a gleeful prediction about another 50 years of oil and gas extraction and a refusal to rule out shale gas extraction in Scotland. If we extract and burn that shale gas, we will add billions of tonnes of unnecessary fossil carbon to the atmosphere. It does not matter a whit whether that ends up in Scotland’s emissions inventory or somebody else’s. If we want to take responsibility, we need to phase out those dirty industries, not pursue any opportunity for GDP growth that we can see from the agenda. We should take a bit of responsibility.
I thank the Presiding Officer for her indulgence and the few extra seconds.
We turn to the winding-up speeches. I can give members some room for interventions in those speeches if they are minded to take them.
16:34
I said in my opening speech that a lot of familiar faces were here for the debate. Rob Gibson, Alison McInnes, Malcolm Chisholm and Patrick Harvie gave the quality speeches that we always expect of them. We also heard from some new faces, such as Jenny Marra, Marco Biagi and Paul Wheelhouse, who introduced the idea that disease will be one of the disadvantages of climate change that will affect us. My experience leads me to think that plant and human diseases will be a problem in Scotland as the climate warms up. Graeme Dey gave us the benefit of his words and made the point that some of the world’s richest countries still do not get it. That is a message that must be delivered at the conference in Durban.
The key issue that I take from the debate is that there is still broad hostility to carbon trading and the opportunities that it might bring. I agree with all members who spoke on the subject that it would be entirely inappropriate if countries such as Scotland used carbon trading mechanisms to avoid making the commitments that we should be making. The carbon units that were discussed in the Parliament earlier this week could represent exactly that kind of move and we need to be careful not to go down that road.
However, there is a broader argument, which I want the minister to address, if possible. As we all know, Scotland is capable of exceeding average performance in making progress against emissions reduction targets. We could do better than many similar countries. Scotland is lucky enough to have much of Europe’s coastline and the opportunity to use wind, wave and perhaps tidal energy in future.
If Scotland has the ability to exceed its targets and outperform the average, it is important that we use that opportunity. There are countries out there that will find it much more difficult to achieve the targets and which will perform below average. If Scotland could meet part of their targets for them, that will achieve the average performance that needs to be achieved. A carbon trading mechanism is one of the measures that could be used to ensure that those who can do, and that those who cannot get someone else to do it for them. There is an economic opportunity for Scotland in that regard, which we cannot afford to ignore. Other mechanisms could achieve the same objective, but carbon trading could undoubtedly contribute, if it were set up in the right way.
I spoke earlier in the debate and I do not intend to speak at great length in summing up. This has been a vital debate. It has allowed many members who have participated in such debates in the past to restate some of our priorities and to bring forward new ideas; it has also allowed a new generation of members of the Scottish Parliament to enter the debate and offer constructive and positive suggestions. In that respect, if nothing else, the afternoon has been valuably spent.
The Durban conference is on the horizon and it is important that we take the opportunity to send the minister off with the good will of the whole Parliament, as we have done on many other occasions. I assure him that he has good will from the Conservative benches. I am glad that the Westminster Government has shown broadness of mind and willingness of spirit in including Scottish ministers in its delegation. It is important that the opportunity is taken and that we work together to set objectives and high targets and to achieve all that we can in the shortest timescale. For that reason, the minister has my best wishes.
16:38
The first goal of the Durban conference must be to agree a second commitment period for the Kyoto protocol, or we will have no global targets after 2012. We know that the United States of America has not signed up and that Canada, Russia and Japan do not want to extend the commitment period and are instead focusing on targets for emerging countries such as China and India. The task is not going to be particularly easy for the UK delegation and our Scottish ministers.
As others have said, climate change is a matter of climate justice. It affects us, but it most affects the poorest and most marginalised communities—those who, as Sarah Boyack said, contribute least to the problem. Those countries require funding through the United Nations for prevention, mitigation and adaptation measures. Scotland accounts for only 0.2 per cent of global emissions but, individually, we have some of the largest carbon footprints in the world. We cannot lecture others if we do not tackle our own overconsumption.
Equally, we can put out the message that, although we produce only one five-hundredth of the world’s carbon emissions, we still understand our responsibilities and are prepared to take action and make difficult—and, let us face it, sometimes unpopular—decisions in the course of shouldering our responsibility to reduce our carbon emissions.
Kyoto needs to be extended. However, a replacement must be negotiated by 2015 and I, too, believe that it needs to include legally binding global targets. Those targets should also include other emissions that are carbon contributors. The minister will be familiar with what I am going to say, as we spoke about the matter during the passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. The targets must include things such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which were used as refrigerants and as blowing agents in plastic foam insulation prior to 2004 and which are now being released into the atmosphere when industrial buildings are demolished. Their carbon equivalents are some 300 million to 400 million times those of carbon dioxide, but they are not covered by the Kyoto protocol. Therefore, although we discussed them during our debates on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, it was not possible to include them in the bill because they were not included in the Kyoto protocol. I hope that, as we look forward to 2015, any future agreement will consider some of those other compounds, which are very dangerous to our environment as well.
Our amendment specifically mentions the statutory report on policies and proposals, which is a requirement of the 2009 act. The report states that the policies and proposals require to be fully funded if we are to reach the 2022 carbon emissions targets and that the EU needs to agree a 30 per cent reduction target. I am not arguing that the Scottish Government must fully fund them all or that that needs to be done within the current spending review period: this is not a funding demand; it is a statement of the Government’s own policy.
At the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, the minister argued, correctly, that there are several partners who are responsible for funding and achieving the RPP: the Scottish Government, the UK Government, the European Union, the public sector, the private sector and—as Claudia Beamish and Annabelle Ewing said—communities and individuals. We need to be clear about who is responsible for what and how things are being funded. That is where the concern about the low-carbon transport budget, which Jenny Marra mentioned, comes in. At the moment, it is not clear how 94 per cent can be brought in from outside in one year or 90 per cent across the spending review cycle.
Our amendment also mentions the increasing challenge, to which Patrick Harvie referred. We may be two thirds of the way to the 2020 carbon reduction target of 42 per cent, but that is, as others have said, partly due to the economic recession. If the euro zone collapses, we will probably easily meet the target because the economy will go down the toilet and we will all be in depression. That would be a pretty drastic way of meeting our target. Obviously, we all hope that the economy will recover, and we all agree that green jobs, renewables technologies and energy efficiency programmes will contribute significantly to recovery. However, economic recovery is also very likely to be accompanied by activities that generate carbon, such as construction, and when that happens we will need to bear down on other carbon reduction programmes so that we can continue to make progress. Graeme Dey made an important point about the recent reports that have indicated that, if we do not all do that, we will see increases in global temperatures of 3.5°C to 6°C.
As it stands, the motion comes over as a bit complacent. It smacks slightly of lecturing others and seems to be making the claim that our experience already shows that action on climate change will create economic opportunities. The minister counteracted that in his speech when he talked about the potential for those opportunities. I agree that there is the potential for such opportunities, but I do not think that, two and a half years after the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was passed, we can say that they will happen.
As Patrick Harvie said, we must guard against the view that climate change adaptation is somehow all about economic advantage and not about the moral imperative to tackle climate change. Our credibility is undermined when the Government makes extravagant claims. Members have referred to the First Minister’s claim of a reduction of 700,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and the praise that he received from Al Gore. However, the Government’s deputy director for climate change was more honest and confirmed that the reduction to 2011 was 125,886 tonnes. Overclaiming does nothing for our credibility.
I will support the Tory amendment, but I wish that I had more confidence in the UK Government’s commitment. Although David Cameron, before he was Prime Minister, was ferried around by dog sleds in the Arctic and cycled to work followed by a car that contained his shoes and briefcase, I do not see that commitment in the UK Government’s actions.
I will give a couple of examples. I am concerned about the UK green deal because it relies on owner-occupiers taking out a loan for energy efficiency measures, rather than receiving a grant. The power companies have struggled with the uptake of the current scheme, so I do not think that, in a time of economic recession when people are worried about mortgages, wages and their futures, they will take out an extra loan for energy efficiency measures. I am appalled by the reduction in the feed-in tariff, to which Claudia Beamish referred. Energy efficiency measures and microgeneration are essential. Those actions by the UK Government destroy its credibility.
I have gone on so much about that that I do not have much time left.
You have some time left if you need it.
Good. I thought that I was overrunning a little.
Sarah Boyack mentioned the importance of peatlands and tropical forests. Rob Gibson has a passion for peatlands, which I think is shared by the minister. I hope that progress will be made on that in Durban. I do not know whether the minister will have an answer to this but, given the announcements on the fossil fuel levy, will change at Durban enable us to use some of that additional money for peatlands? The International Union for Conservation of Nature UK peatland programme estimates that we need expenditure of about £15 million a year. Is the fossil fuel levy a possible source of that extra funding?
There has been a lot of debate about transport. Claudia Beamish, Alison McInnes and Malcolm Chisholm referred to concerns about the active travel budget, which is decreasing while the motorways and trunk roads budget is increasing. Surely money could be transferred from the motorways and trunk roads budget, which does nothing to tackle climate change, to the active travel budget, which does a lot to tackle climate change and to improve people’s health and wellbeing.
At present, less than 5 per cent of public transport vehicles use alternative fuels, but the SNP manifesto indicated an aspiration to have 100 per cent of those vehicles being fuelled in that way. Does the Government see a way of doing that in the next four and a half years, given the budgets in the spending review?
Malcolm Chisholm briefly touched on biomass. In some places, it makes sense to use biomass. In my constituency, forestry off-cuts from sawmills that are literally next door can be used. However, I see no sense in importing wood from other parts of the country or the world to burn in Scotland. How does a market for that type of thing influence land use policies in other countries?
I wish the minister all the best when he gets to Durban and I hope that he comes back to the Parliament with good news for us all.
16:48
The debate perfectly illustrates the old saying that something starts off as a heresy, then becomes an argument and eventually an orthodoxy. Actually, I suspect that we have a heterodoxy—in other words, we all agree, but we have different opinions about certain aspects. The agreement that we struck across the political divide in Scotland in 2009 took a lot of hard work on everybody’s part and was an excellent foundation for future action.
Elaine Murray, Aileen McLeod and other members raised the issue of a second commitment period under Kyoto. We should be careful in one respect. A second commitment period for the existing treaty is clearly second best to having an up-to-date treaty that is legally binding across the world and which reflects today’s needs. It is certainly something that should be kept in the locker, but the UK Government is clear that the focus has to be on negotiating a new treaty that is suitable for a new era in which we understand more about the issues. The second commitment period is very much a fall-back position and we agree with that approach.
Elaine Murray mentioned CFCs and so on. Those are, like peat, outside the accounting system. We would like the accounting system to take more account of things that have an impact—positively or negatively—on greenhouse gas emissions and, hence, on climate change.
Let us remind ourselves of something that I have said on many occasions, including in 2008-09, which is that the targets are long term, although the impacts are immediate and with us now. The target of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 is one that we share with the UK Government. According to the registrar general’s report a month ago, he predicts that, in Scotland, my life expectancy is another 16.7 years. I hope that he is wrong. I would be 104 years old in 2050 if I am so spared—I would rather like to see what is happening.
Elaine Murray asked a very specific question about whether the fossil fuel levy can be used to restore peatlands. I do not know the answer to that question, but I will ensure that she gets an answer. There are technical issues about what that money may be spent on but I, too, would like to see some of it being spent on that.
I think that we are in agreement on the value of small-scale biomass in local communities. I thank Elaine Murray for the good wishes—I have also received them from other members, notably Malcolm Chisholm—that I take with me to Durban.
I say to Alex Johnstone that the temperature in Durban today is 19ºC and it is raining heavily. Of course, as I will be inside throughout the entire visit, I will not see any of the place. Alex Johnstone talked, as many Conservatives increasingly do, about wind. It is worth reminding ourselves that we have a diverse range of renewable energies. Thanks to the work that was largely led by Tom Johnston, the famous and very effective Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, we have a significant hydro industry, which has been with us for a long time.
We are moving towards tidal energy, which is a much more predictable and reliable source of energy. It has a diurnal cycle, which is not a large cycle, and it also has an annual cycle, but it is predictable. Alex Johnstone says that a pragmatic, sustainable approach is needed, and moving to tidal delivers on that.
Rob Gibson referred, as he would normally be expected to, to peatland. We need to measure and account for our land use, land use change and forests. We hope to see progress on that.
I very much welcome Claudia Beamish to the debate. I recognise that in her previous life, before she became an MSP, she was engaged in the issue. She has an insight and a range of experience that is well worth listening to. She made a point about a report on energy efficiency in which the Scottish Government comes well down the field. If I am thinking of the correct report, it related in essence to whether we had put in smart meters and whether we had got our buildings accredited. We are going for the accreditation standard but we have not gone for accreditation. We are, because of our policy, taking the actions that smart meters might force us to take. We are doing rather better than that report perhaps suggested.
We share Claudia Beamish’s disappointment about the sudden change of financial support for solar panels, which follows the disastrous change in the regime for oil. Those changes affect industries that require long-term certainty. Fergus Ewing wrote to the UK Government on that, but I do not believe that we have yet had a response.
I am delighted to say that I have visited the woodland allotment in Peebles, which is an excellent initiative. The climate challenge fund has supported 1,000 allotments so far. I wrote down what Claudia Beamish said in essence as, “Don’t be too restrictive”, and I do not believe that we are. Claims submitted by projects to the climate challenge fund showed a reduction at one point of 700,000 tonnes, and that figure is now rising because we are continuing the funding.
I said in committee just over a year ago that not every project will succeed because we are not drawing the regulations so tightly that we are excluding innovation, which may or may not succeed. It is important to recognise that that is the case.
Graeme Dey gave us some fairly alarming figures from an IPCC report that showed that violent storms, CO2 emissions and so on will increase. That is absolutely true, and we will continue to exercise leadership. Annabel Ewing made an important contribution in which she referred to the Comrie Development Trust, which—if I recall correctly—has three projects supported by the climate challenge fund. I visited the projects, including the allotments, around 18 months ago.
I welcome Jenny Marra to the debate. On transport, she should remember that we continue to make substantial investments in the rail network—for example, we have invested around £1 billion in the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme. On the subject of eco driving, that can be funded by the companies and drivers themselves; I recently heard of an example in which the entire cost of an eco driving course for a team of white van men was recovered in six weeks in reduced fuel consumption. We can see that that is happening around Scotland.
Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the freight facilities grant. Alas, we never got enough good projects, although I must say that I constantly banged the drum in my previous ministerial position. Patrick Harvie seemed to talk down our achievement of a 27.6 per cent reduction in emissions, en route to 42 per cent by 2020, but it is an excellent achievement. Various people have said that it is important that we now lock in that achievement, and we will seek to do so.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time now.
It is important that we recognise the economic value of the activity that we are doing. When we create jobs, we create wider commitment to the agenda. We expect that the number of jobs in the low-carbon economy will rise from 70,000 to 130,000 by 2020, which will amount to approximately 5 per cent of the workforce in total.
I turn to a couple of things to which Sarah Boyack referred. She mentioned carbon capture, but I am afraid that we cannot forget—or forgive—the fact that the Labour Party in government at Westminster failed the test of government when it sabotaged the Peterhead carbon capture system, and it therefore ill behoves Labour members to speak on that subject. Sarah Boyack said today that she had resisted the temptation to provide a list of budget amendments to address various issues, but she fails the challenge of opposition.
I hope that we have a good conference in Durban, and I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate.
Previous
Scottish Executive Question TimeNext
Decision Time