Climate Change (Report on Proposals and Policies)
The next item of business is a statement by Paul Wheelhouse on “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting our Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027—The Second Report on Proposals and Policies” and “The Scottish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Target 2011 Report”. The Minister will take questions at the end of his statement and therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:16
Today, I am publishing both the final version of the Scottish Government’s second climate change report on proposals and policies—RPP2—and the statutory report on the annual emissions reduction target for 2011. I set on record once again my thanks to the four parliamentary committees that scrutinised the draft RPP2, and to the many stakeholders who contributed their views to that process and who continue to keep the profile of climate change action high. WWF Scotland’s Twitter campaign earlier this month is the latest example of that and, as I have said, I am proud to live in a country where so many people care about climate change.
The two documents that I am publishing today tell two parts of the same story: our progress to date and our ambition for the future. The report on the annual target for 2011 shows that between 2010 and 2011, Scottish emissions fell sharply, by 9.9 per cent, to 51.3 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That was the biggest single year-on-year decrease since regular reporting of emissions began in 1998. The fall is bigger than the increase that was experienced in 2010 as a result of the record cold weather that year.
Scotland’s target for 2011 requires that greenhouse gas emissions do not exceed 53.4 megatonnes. Our unadjusted emissions are some 2.1 megatonnes below that limit. However, our targets are measured using adjusted figures in the net Scottish emissions account, which factor in the emissions allowances that have been allocated to the Scottish installations that participate in the European Union emissions trading system—primarily our thermal power stations and other heavy industry. Using those adjusted figures, the net Scottish emissions account for 2011 was 54.25 megatonnes, which exceeded the annual target by 0.85 megatonnes.
To have missed the 2011 target is extremely disappointing, particularly given circumstances in which actual emissions—as opposed to adjusted emissions—are at record levels below the 1990 baseline. Without wishing to get bogged down in technicalities, I note that the level of the emissions baseline is critically important. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is framed in a way that requires emissions targets to be set in absolute terms—53.4 megatonnes, in the case of 2011. However, work is being carried out continually to improve the accuracy of the actual emissions data that we use—the greenhouse gas inventory. That means that, although the targets are fixed, in effect we have a floating baseline.
Circumstances have been such that our understanding of Scotland’s emissions baseline has changed considerably in recent years. Revisions to the three editions of the greenhouse gas inventory that have been published since Parliament set the annual targets for 2010 to 2027 have added more than 2 million tonnes of extra emissions to almost every year since 1990, and in the region of 2.8 megatonnes to 1990 itself.
Those changes do not represent new emissions; rather, we have identified emissions that were not known about when Scotland’s climate change targets were set, which has made reaching those targets much more challenging. However, the challenges posed by those changes in baseline should not mask the achievements that Scotland has made and continues to make.
Our adjusted net emissions have fallen by 25.7 per cent since 1990, which is considerably more than the 23.9 per cent envisaged for 2011 when the annual targets were originally set. Similarly, the annual targets for 2010 and 2011 require that net emissions reduce by 0.46 per cent year on year. The actual reported reduction was 2.9 per cent, which is more than six times as much. In fact, it is worth noting that, had the 2011 annual target been updated to reflect the higher baseline in the 2011 inventory, it would have been met with around 1.26 megatonnes to spare.
When we look across Europe we see that, on a like-for-like basis, Scotland has achieved greater cuts in emissions than any member state in the EU 15 and has significantly outperformed the average for the EU 27. The trend is going in the right direction. We are determined to do more and ensure that emissions fall even more quickly, to secure a truly low-carbon future. The package of proposals and policies set out in RPP2 and the commitment that they represent is an important part of that.
However, it is clear that the basis on which this Parliament set Scotland’s climate change targets has changed significantly over the past few years. That is something that the Scottish Government will keep under review.
The impact of the latest data revisions is also felt in the level of emissions reported for 2010. Whereas last year we reported that the net Scottish emissions account for 2010 was 1.06 megatonnes above that year’s annual target, the latest inventory has adjusted that up to 2.27 megatonnes. We set out in the draft RPP2 that we intended to compensate for the excess emissions in 2010 by delivering greater emissions cuts over the long term. Our approach remains the same for 2011 emissions and for the final version of RPP2.
Making the low-carbon transition is a long-term project, and, as I have indicated, the long-term trend is a good one. Our current policies, plus the proposals outlined in RPP2, have the potential to outperform our emissions targets to 2027 by more than 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, even before we factor in the impact that stronger action in Europe would have. If the EU were to increase its 2020 emissions target from 20 per cent to 30 per cent, the package of measures in RPP2 would have the potential to outperform our targets by more than 18 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent.
Scotland’s climate change targets were based on the assumption that the EU would make that move and, as a consequence, strengthen the cap on its emissions trading system. When this Parliament passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, we were looking forward to the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, in the expectation that an international deal would be agreed that would precipitate the EU moving to a target of 30 per cent. As yet, unfortunately, the disappointment of Copenhagen and faltering progress at subsequent international climate change negotiations have prevented that move from happening. We believe that, given that it is set to overachieve against its 20 per cent target, the EU can, should and will improve its current position, and we will continue to press for that.
The final version of RPP2 that we are publishing today has been revised to take into account many of the recommendations that were made in respect of the draft version. The changes are too numerous to go through individually this afternoon, but they are set out in the written statement that I have laid alongside RPP2. I have also written to Rob Gibson, Murdo Fraser, Maureen Watt and Kevin Stewart, as conveners of the four committees that scrutinised the draft report.
RPP2 remains a broad-ranging and complex report but we have tried, where we can, to include more information to better explain the points of complexity. We have also responded to concerns that it was difficult to read across from RPP1, so we have added tables in the sectoral chapters summarising progress relating to the proposals and policies.
The importance of behaviour change was a subject that witnesses and committees returned to regularly during the scrutiny period. Clearly, any efforts to reduce Scotland’s emissions depend heavily on the way people choose to consume goods and energy. Many of the policies and proposals in RPP2 seek to tackle behaviours in one way or another. Although it is not possible to detail each and every action, we have sought in the final document to give a better sense of the co-ordinated approach that the Scottish Government is taking.
The report now reflects the publication of the low-carbon behaviours framework and the way in which we are using the latest social science research in our new individual, social and material, or ISM, tool. This is a developing field and, given the strong interest in this work, I have committed to publishing a report in the autumn that will highlight the progress that we are making.
I mentioned that we have tried to improve clarity across RPP2. One aspect of the draft report that was criticised was that, although it contains three “technical potential” proposals in relation to housing, transport and rural land use that consider further emissions abatement in the 2020s, there are currently uncertainties about how best to achieve that abatement. It is reasonable, in a document that looks out to 2027, to include such elements of top-down modelling. However, I accept that, in an attempt to reflect that those measures are currently work in progress, the draft report probably included insufficient detail about the basis on which they had been made. The measures still represent work in progress, but we have sought to include more information about the modelling and assumptions that inform our analysis.
I turn now to what I believe is the most fundamental aspect of RPP2—that is, the package of proposals and policies itself.
Scotland’s net emissions reduced by 25.7 per cent, or 18.7 million tonnes, in the 21 years between 1990 and 2011. Unadjusted emissions fell by 21 megatonnes—more than Northern Ireland’s total emissions in 2011. As certain witnesses pointed out during the scrutiny of the draft report, those reductions were, in many ways, the easy part. Despite that, RPP2 details proposals and polices that have the potential to reduce Scotland’s emissions by a further 23.5 million tonnes over the next 15 years. Any fair-minded person would acknowledge that that represents a significant gear change.
Some members of the Opposition have—for political convenience, one can only assume—dismissed the notion that Scotland’s climate change targets have from the outset built in an assumption of a greater contribution from Europe. The fact that that contribution has yet to happen, coupled with the changes that have been made to how our emissions are measured in the first place, has significantly moved the goalposts in the time since our climate change targets were set. Again, any fair-minded observer would recognise that.
However, RPP2 shows that, based purely on policies that the Scottish Government already has in place, we can achieve emissions reductions of 40.1 per cent in 2020—short of the 42 per cent target set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, but only by less than the difference in emissions between 2010 and 2011. With the contribution of the additional proposals in RPP2, emissions could be cut by 43.3 per cent, even in the absence of higher EU ambition prior to 2020. If the EU strengthens its target to 30 per cent, as this Parliament anticipated in 2009, we could achieve a greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 47.1 per cent by 2020.
Some committees and stakeholders have called for RPP2 to be strengthened, for more measures to be added and for additional commitments to be made. I would respond that RPP2 shows how Scotland’s climate change targets can be met and does so with a package of proposals and policies that are credible, deliverable and, importantly, fair. It would be easy to add speculative measures that we believe may have future potential but which are currently not well enough understood, even from a modelling perspective, to allow us to make anything more than an educated guess about the emissions abatement that they might deliver. To do that would not be credible, but that does not mean that we have shut the door on new opportunities.
When RPP1 was published, there was criticism that we did not ascribe specific emissions abatement to peatland restoration. We took the view at that time that the science was not sufficiently developed to make a reasonable estimate. Two years on, our understanding has increased greatly and peatland restoration therefore features as a full proposal in RPP2.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee highlighted the emissions abatement potential represented by marine ecosystems—so-called blue carbon. The draft RPP2 did not mention that, simply because our understanding of the emissions science in that area is in its infancy. It is still too early to estimate how much abatement blue carbon could offer, but we have amended RPP2 to signal that that is something that we are starting to look at. I hope that that can be developed further for RPP3, just as happened with peatland restoration between RPP1 and RPP2.
There have been calls to increase the rate at which we are retrofitting Scotland’s housing stock with insulation and other measures to help improve their energy efficiency. RPP2 sets out our ambitious plan to tackle fuel poverty, reduce carbon emissions and support jobs through our home energy efficiency programmes for Scotland. That work is supported by funding of around £200 million per year from the Scottish Government and energy companies—the funding is in line with the recommendations in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee report on fuel poverty in February 2012. As well as reducing emissions, those programmes will assist many vulnerable and low-income households. Scotland’s performance in driving up insulation levels, working in partnership with local councils, has demonstrated our credibility in delivery.
There have also been calls on the Scottish Government simply to regulate more—to make people do things, rather than encourage them to do things. There is certainly a place for regulation, particularly where it helps to create market certainty for investors. For example, biodegradable municipal waste will be banned from going to landfill by the end of 2020—the first such ban anywhere the United Kingdom.
However, for behavioural change to be truly effective and long lasting, we need to offer the people of Scotland a fair deal, to help make low-carbon choices as attractive and easy as possible. I believe that the support that we are giving energy efficiency for homes and businesses, and waste and resource efficiency across the public and private sector, strikes that balance. We are coupling that with investment, both public and private, in decarbonising our energy and protecting and growing our natural carbon sinks.
The Scottish Government is facing a real-terms cut of more than 25 per cent in the amount of capital funding that is available to it between 2010-11 and 2014-15. There are many tough choices to make about where best to spend the money that Westminster decides to make available to us, but despite that, the Scottish Government has committed more than £1.1 billion to low-carbon action over the current spending review period.
We need to do more, of course, and RPP sets out where and how we can do more. Where opportunities arise to go further or faster, we will take them, and we will seek to secure whatever additional funding we can, even in difficult budget conditions, to add to the £1.1 billion that we have already committed.
I am therefore pleased to announce that, as an initial step, we will make available up to £2 million this year to carry out condition surveys to help accelerate local authorities’ work to upgrade the energy efficiency of street lighting. I can also confirm that the Scottish Cabinet has agreed that the forthcoming budget in September will contain additional funding for climate change action beyond the allocations already announced.
As I noted when we debated the draft report in March,
“RPP2 is the most comprehensive outline of measures for reducing national emissions that we know of anywhere.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2013; c 18249.]
It shows how Scotland can meet its climate change targets despite the many challenges that we face. It underscores the Scottish Government’s continuing commitment to this agenda, even when it appears to have fallen down some other Governments’ list of political priorities—even those who aspired to be “the greenest Government ever”.
I urge members to endorse RPP2 and, rather than simply calling for more ideas and plans, to support the Scottish Government in working to deliver more and to build on our strong foundations.
Scotland can be proud of the progress that it has made and what it has achieved. RPP2 shows how we can achieve even more, going beyond the easy wins and taking on the challenge of making low carbon mainstream.
I look forward to tackling that challenge together with my ministerial colleagues, businesses and public sector organisations, non-governmental organisations, and families and individuals across Scotland. I hope that members across the chamber will join that effort positively and support the Government in working together for a low-carbon Scotland.
The minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. I advise members that we are short of time this afternoon, so short and succinct questions and answers would be much appreciated.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement and the documents, although, with the information running to more than 400 pages, this afternoon does not lend itself to proper scrutiny of this long-awaited and important document.
With its coming on the back of two missed emissions targets, there is a high expectation that RPP2 will get us back on track. The minister has repeated his excuses for the missed emissions targets, and has again claimed that we will meet the 2020 target, but we are clearly at risk of missing interim targets and increasingly playing catch up, making each subsequent target harder to reach.
RPP2 cannot be a plan to miss future targets; it must deliver on opportunities for better housing, more transport options, better air quality and sustainable growth.
It is not true to say that Parliament’s support for the targets was dependent only on the EU target increasing. Certainly, that would make achieving them easier, but our targets were so radical and world leading because we were committed to delivering progress by this Parliament.
Stop Climate Chaos Scotland’s response to RPP2 was that all policies and proposals had to be implemented, as well as the EU moving to a 30 per cent emissions reduction target, if Scottish climate change targets were to be met. Analysis suggests that the 2027 target would be achieved with policies and proposals alone, but that all earlier targets would be missed, which would make future targets more difficult to achieve. RPP2 repeats claims that 2027 targets will be met, but can the minister say what changes been made that will deliver earlier action and achieve interim targets?
The draft did not contain a single Scottish Government policy to reduce emissions from transport, and Scotland continues to exceed air-quality targets. Can the minister say what transport proposals have been changed to policies, so that we can make progress, particularly with regard to achieving modal shift, which is one of the biggest challenges within behavioural change, given that emissions from transport have stayed the same over the past 20 years?
What does the minister mean when he says that the basis on which the Parliament set the targets has changed significantly, and that that is something that the Scottish Government will keep under review?
I will deal with the last question first. I know that Claire Baker has not had time to delve into all 400 pages of the report, but I think that it is obvious from the statement that I have given and the statement at the beginning of the report that the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which set the targets in absolute terms—the Parliament then went on to confirm targets up to 2027—did not allow for a mechanism for adjustment in the light of significant baseline revisions. As I understand it, when data started to be collected, emissions figures in Scotland were being revised downwards. However, they then started to be successively revised upwards and, in the last three sets of figures, under the greenhouse gas inventory, that revision has been significant. That has added 2.8 megatonnes to the 1990 baseline, and we missed the target in 2011 by only 0.8 megatonnes. If we were doing a really bad job, we would have missed it by a bigger margin.
I am trying to get across the message that we have a significantly greater challenge to meet, and we need to have a cross-Parliament approach to tackling it. After all, one day—heaven help us—the Labour Party might be in power in Scotland and will need to deal with these issues.
We have already invested significantly in transport, as the member knows. However, I accept that transport is an area of the economy in which we have not made as much progress as we would have liked. The transport sector has a complete package in RPP2—it is important to look at it as a whole. The tables at the back of RPP2 show clearly that, together, all the policies and proposals that are described will allow us to meet each annual target from 2013 to 2027, albeit—and I appreciate this point—in circumstances in which the EU moves its target to 30 per cent. As I said in my statement, we are looking to recover any missed targets in the period up to 2020 and beyond, when we will move to actual emissions data. The full impact of the Government’s investment in and support for renewable energy will then kick in, as the tables demonstrate.
I apologise if I have missed any of Claire Baker’s points. I am happy to engage with her—as I do positively with all members—on progress towards our climate change targets.
I take the minister’s point that Scotland’s targets were built on the assumption of a greater contribution from Europe, which is slow in coming. Nevertheless, the minister will be aware that Stop Climate Chaos Scotland has said that it is
“very disappointed that the second climate change target in a row has been missed”.
Does the minister understand the concern that the draft RPP2 does not focus enough on the specific policy changes that will be required to reduce emissions, particularly in transport? Is he confident that those changes will be embedded in the final report and that he has the support of all his ministerial colleagues for achieving future targets?
I welcome the minister’s comments on peatland restoration. What action is he taking to ensure that significant peatland restoration measures, which are currently limited in scope and extent, are achieved in the new Scotland rural development programme?
I also welcome the fact that some progress has been made on more homes having energy efficient ratings, but we still have a significant way to go, as the existing homes alliance Scotland has pointed out. Does he agree that an increased use of the green council tax discount could help to achieve further progress in the area? Will he do all that he can within the Government to promote awareness and uptake of the scheme?
On the transport challenge and whether all colleagues are signed up to the agenda, the Cabinet’s agreement to prioritise, or at least to support, additional funding measures in the 2014-15 budget is a clear signal that it realises the scale of the challenge. I hope that the fact that the targets are becoming more difficult to achieve reassures the stakeholders out there, the public and colleagues across the chamber that we have an absolute commitment to achieving our targets despite the fact that we recognise the technical difficulties. We are showing ambition and are determined to achieve the absolute targets that we have set for ourselves as a Parliament.
As the member knows, we have an opportunity to restore our peatlands further on a significant scale. We have put the technical potential options in the document, which sets out a target for 21,000 hectares per annum. However, as I have said all along—and as the member recognised in his question—important details need to be filled in, such as what shape the SRDP will take; as time goes by, we are getting more detail about what that might look like. The peatland plan needs to be developed in partnership with land managers, the private and public sectors and NGOs. We need to understand the impacts that peatland can have on climate change emissions.
The take-up of the green council tax discount has to date been limited, but I am happy to reconsider the issue and see whether there is any way in which we can further influence take-up.
As a necessary part of behaviour change, all members should be able to identify from their constituencies fair contributions to meeting the targets. In my case, the Scottish Government has stepped up from proposals to policies on peatland restoration, which I very much welcome. Does the minister agree that peatland restoration is part of the preventative spend agenda and that there are, in other constituencies, many other parts of the agenda to be found, which members could champion?
I agree with Rob Gibson, who has been a long-standing and passionate campaigner for peatland, as has Jamie McGrigor. He is absolutely right to identify peatland as an excellent example of preventative spend and how we can use the natural environment to protect ourselves from the damaging effects of climate change on biodiversity through adaptation, flood prevention and sequestration of carbon dioxide. There are probably few better constituencies for that policy to be deployed in than Rob Gibson’s. I am happy to continue to work with him to address the issue. The Scottish Government is developing with Scottish Natural Heritage a peatland plan for Scotland; I look forward to taking forward those proposals.
The minister has acknowledged the criticism of the draft report’s three “technical potential” proposals in relation to housing, transport and rural land use that might provide emissions abatement in the 2020s. In view of the uncertainties, can he clarify what modelling and assumptions inform the further analysis in the final document? Will he acknowledge the need to ensure that current policies are robust enough to ensure that we do not miss any more targets? Does he acknowledge how essential funding is for research into blue carbon and other developing issues?
On the issues that Claudia Beamish fairly raises, we recognise the criticism that has been made about the lack of detail, which we have tried to address in the final document. Regarding peatlands—the proposal that is most closely relevant to my portfolio—as I said to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and as we have just discussed, we had a number of uncertainties both about the actual technical potential of peatland to sequester carbon and about the funding mechanisms that might be required to stimulate investment from private sector landowners in landscape-scale or ecosystem-scale projects, which will obviously be very important. There were also issues surrounding the SRDP funding mechanism. The final document provides more detail that I hope will add flesh to the bones of the three proposals.
We are trying to do more work on blue carbon. I will certainly look at the research opportunities on what is, like peatlands, clearly an emerging possibility, although it will have to go through a similar process. I am happy to work with Claudia Beamish on that matter, which I know she also raised in committee.
This week, the UK Committee on Climate Change warned the United Kingdom that it is not on track to meet its targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That is despite the fact that the UK greenhouse gas emissions targets are lower than Scotland’s and do not include aviation and shipping. What can the Scottish Government do to encourage the UK Government to meet its targets?
Maureen Watt raises an important point because, under the current constitutional situation, UK policy impacts on Scotland in a number of areas. The Committee on Climate Change’s progress report sends an important message to the coalition Government to increase its action on climate change.
I was interested to note that the Committee on Climate Change acknowledged that Scotland and other devolved Administrations continue to lead the UK in several important areas, including in power, housing and waste. I suggest that the UK Government might consider whether it can learn from the approach that Scotland has taken in those areas.
Most notably, the Scottish Government recognises the unease that the current electricity market reform is causing in the renewable energy and renewables investment sector. We urge the UK Government to move quickly to provide the detail that is required to restore certainty to the market. The Scottish Government has worked closely with the UK Government throughout the electricity market reform process to ensure that it capitalises on Scotland’s energy potential and that it delivers for all technologies—in particular, the less mature technologies.
The minister will be aware of concerns about the lack of steps to reduce emissions from our housing stock and to tackle fuel poverty, but he has shied away from using building standards to effect a change. The Scottish Government also voted down amendments to the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Bill that would have incentivised insulation in fuel-inefficient buildings. What steps will he take to ensure that there is a step change in energy efficiency in our private housing stock?
As Rhoda Grant should probably know, Scotland is already making substantial progress in housing. We have made great progress in the number of properties that are insulated and in other improvements to tackle fuel poverty more generally, to which I have alluded.
A number of initiatives are being deployed at UK level to encourage energy company investment in housing energy efficiency. Those initiatives, such as the green deal, point to the greater potential support that could be provided in Scotland. From work that is being done to evaluate the impact of those measures, it looks as though for every £1 that the Government puts in, £3 is invested from elsewhere. There are good opportunities for Scotland to exploit that route for funding. A sign of our commitment is that we have backed energy efficiency in Scotland with £79 million in 2013-14. That will lever in extra money from energy companies to create a total contribution of, we believe, up to £200 million a year.
Given that the latest renewable energy statistics confirm that 2012 was another record year for renewables generation in Scotland, does the minister agree that Scotland’s leadership in renewable energy is a huge success story, as we seek to reduce the impact of our greenhouse gas emissions?
Chic Brodie will not be surprised to hear that my answer is yes. In order to meet our long-term climate change targets, we will need fundamental change in how we generate energy. Scotland’s abundant renewables resources have given us a strong starting point, and this Government is determined that Scotland will realise that potential.
We have set an ambitious target, on which we are making very good progress, to generate the equivalent of 100 per cent of our electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020. As Chic Brodie will know, the provisional figures show that take-up rose to 39 per cent in 2012. We now know that the challenge is even greater, which is why we have set a new target to achieve by 2030 carbon intensity of 50g of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity that is generated in Scotland. Our modelling shows that successful delivery of the 100 per cent renewable electricity target and the progressive deployment of carbon capture and storage in the 2020s means that our new decarbonisation target could be hit a little earlier—perhaps closer to 2027. The carbon intensity of the grid, which was 347g of CO2 per kilowatt hour in 2010, dropped to 289g of CO2 per kilowatt hour in 2011.
I, too, thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. The document that has been published today says that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee commented that
“the final RPP2 should give a more robust and policy focussed assessment of how carbon emissions will be reduced across the Rural Land Use sector.”
However, the table on page 240 of the final report—which is identical to the table in the draft report—includes the proposals for “Additional technical potential”, “Developments in agricultural technology”, and “90 per cent Uptake of Fertiliser Efficiency Measures”. Those proposals, which look to the future, amount to 41 per cent of proposals and policies. Are those reasonable, or fanciful, estimates?
Clearly, Jim Hume will not be surprised to hear me say that the estimates in the document are reasonable; I am hardly likely to stand up and say anything else.
In fairness, his point is important. I addressed that matter last week when I spoke at the Quality Meat Scotland breakfast at the Royal Highland Show. There are a number of ways in which we can get the message across to farmers, which is a means to reduce emissions in the sector further. I know that there are a lot of issues related to nitrogen use and there is an important message in RPP2 about what we can do, as a society, to further reduce nitrogen use in our farming.
We are also concerned that there may be a further baseline revision to the greenhouse gas inventories resulting from increased methane potency. We will keep that under review, but we are committed to delivering lower emissions in the agriculture sector.
I congratulate the agricultural community on lowering emissions by more than 29 per cent by 2011, which is a significant contribution to our progress on climate change.
Given that—even as Scotland endeavours to reduce its emissions—climate change is impacting on the world’s poorest communities, will the minister update Parliament on Scotland’s role in championing climate justice?
Mr Campbell is quite right that climate justice is an extremely important aspect of the Scottish Government’s policy. We are tackling the need for higher ambition not only in Europe, but across the globe, by sending out a message on the benefits to the economy. There is also a moral message; we are a global community and the countries that have contributed least to the climate problem are suffering the most from its impacts.
This Government has invested £3 million in a climate justice fund. In November last year, I was pleased to award in the first round £2.5 million to four projects in Malawi and one in Zambia that are dedicated to improving the availability of clean drinking water and to tackling the gender issues that arise from women having to find water daily. Those are extremely important projects that set an example to developing nations about what developed countries are willing to put back for the damage that we have caused to the global environment. I look forward to further rounds of activity for the fund.
It is worth highlighting that we are holding an international conference on climate change on 9 October in Edinburgh, where we hope to drive further the climate justice agenda on the back of our work in Scotland.
I was pleased that the minister acknowledged the role that business plays in progressing the targets, and that he will work with businesses on that. Will he expand a little on what discussions he has had, particularly with small businesses, to ensure that, while we work together to achieve the targets, we do not engulf small businesses in extra red tape and regulation?
Alex Fergusson raises an important point. We have established groups, such as the 2020 group, that deal for the most part with large companies. I appreciate that small and medium-sized enterprises in many cases face different issues.
We are working through our individual, social and material—ISM—and other behavioural change models to try to understand what influences businesses’ decisions on their use of resources and how to become more energy efficient. We have put together a new package—called resource efficient Scotland—to help businesses to move towards a low-carbon transition. I look forward to developing that work.
Much behavioural work needs to be done. We are doing primary research on how we can influence behaviour in different parts of society—individuals, communities, businesses and specialist areas such as agriculture. We need to give businesses a mixture of altruistic messages and messages about how we can help them to reduce their reliance on resources and thereby reduce their costs.
Does the minister accept that transformational change is required in the housing sector to achieve the ambitious emissions-reduction targets that have been agreed by the Parliament? What further assurance can he provide that the target of 100,000 homes with some form of individual or community renewable heat technology will be achieved by 2020? What further discussions has he had with the UK Government on incentives for microrenewables to enable many more people to heat their homes in an energy-efficient way?
That is an important question. We have set out proposals to update our renewable heat target in the latest renewable heat report for 2012, which the Scottish ministers—specifically, Mr Ewing—published on 18 June 2012. That shows that we need more renewable heat to deliver our 11 per cent target. We will take a comprehensive look at how we can maximise renewable heat in Scotland to achieve that increased ambition through a heat generation policy statement.
The Scottish Government was disappointed in the UK Government’s delay to the renewable heat incentive. The Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, Mr Ewing, has raised that directly with Greg Barker on several occasions. In the interim, I welcome the increase in the UK Government’s renewable heat premium payment vouchers.
The Scottish Government will continue to make interest-free home renewables loans available to householders to install renewables technologies. We also look to make available £50 million from the warm homes fund from 2012 to 2015 to help councils and social landlords to develop renewable energy projects that will help to alleviate fuel poverty.
There is also work being done by the Energy Saving Trust, which estimates that there had been 10,800 microheat technologies installations by 2012 and that, in 2011, a total of about 20,000 homes used some form of renewable heat.
I thank the minister for early sight of his statement.
Upgraded policies are few and far between in the document. On transport, for example, there is not a single idea from the Scottish Government that has the status of “policy”. Will the minister make clear what the Scottish Government will do to reduce road emissions that it is not required to do by the European Union?
The Government’s own expert committee is urging expansion of the loan scheme to get district heating projects under way, so why does financing remain at only £5 million over several years?
On the things that we are not being required to do by others, I point Alison Johnstone to the investment that we are making. I appreciate her point, which she made clearly in the pedal on Parliament event, that she does not feel that enough is being invested in active travel, but we are investing £58 million over the spending review period on active and sustainable travel.
In Scotland, we have a different agenda on subsidy for public transport to that of our colleagues south of the border and we are doing much more to try to deliver transport improvements. It is worth saying that emissions have fallen in transport now for three or, possibly, four years. I appreciate that that is the area in which we are most vulnerable to accusations that we have not made enough progress on emissions abatement, but we are making progress. I hope that Alison Johnstone will welcome that and take it forward.
I will happily come back to her on the point about what we are doing on funding for district heating and see whether we can take anything further forward.
Changes in the baseline data mean that Scotland is now trying to cut emissions by more than was the case from the original baseline when we passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. What can the Scottish Government do to highlight to our neighbours in the EU that Scotland has actually increased its ambitions for tackling climate change?
Colin Beattie raises an important point. As I said in my statement, the baseline has moved and the annual targets have stayed the same, which means that if we are to achieve our absolute targets—which we still aim to do by 2020—we will have to reduce our emissions by 44.2 per cent. In remaining committed to that target—despite the change in the baseline—we are already increasing our ambition. That should come across loud and clear.
When I have travelled to the EU environment council, I have been genuinely pleased—as I was when I travelled to the United Nations climate change conference in Doha last year—at the level of recognition of Scotland’s climate change ambitions and achievements.
Despite the difficult negotiations on the EU emissions trading system, much good work on climate change is going on throughout Europe. Scotland can hold its head high in that company. I refer members to table 1.1 of RPP2, which shows how Scotland compares with other nations. Scotland, with a 29.6 per cent reduction in unadjusted emissions, is ahead of every EU 15 country and is well ahead of the EU 27 average.
I hear what the minister is saying about significant reductions since 1990. However, is not it the case that there have been no reductions in transport emissions over that period, that in the draft RPP2 there was not a single policy to reduce transport emissions, and that the UK Committee on Climate Change has said that it is necessary for the Scottish Government urgently to translate proposals into policies?
The minister made general remarks about transport in response to Alison Johnstone and Claire Baker. Can he name proposals in the draft RPP2 that are now policies? In particular, are there demand-reduction measures, to bring about modal shift?
I recognise Malcolm Chisholm’s long-standing interest in the matter and I realise that he is asking a genuine question. I recognise that the UK Committee on Climate Change made points about our needing to move faster to ensure that our detailed policies are implemented and achieve their abatement potential. However, it is worth pointing out that David Kennedy said:
“Scotland has made good progress in delivering on emission reduction measures to date. This lays the foundations for meeting ambitious Scottish emissions targets and building a low-carbon economy in Scotland with the benefits that this will bring.”
The Committee on Climate Change recognises the progress that we are making.
On converting proposals to policies, I am sure that Malcolm Chisholm, who is a sophisticated reader of documents such as the one that we are considering, appreciates that not all measures in RPP2 have to be firm policies from the start. We know that in the period to 2027 we will face a number of uncertainties—not least, there will be at least four Scottish Parliament elections between now and then. We do not know what political direction Scotland will take or what the wider framework will be for funding from Europe and other sources.
As I said, the Cabinet has agreed to look at additional funding support, above and beyond the measures in the report. I look forward to seeing what comes forward.