Official Report 318KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01726, in the name of Gillian Martin, on Scotland’s commitment to international climate justice. Members wishing to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button now.
15:34
I am pleased to open today’s timely debate, which comes just ahead of the 31st conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—COP31—in Turkey and to have the opportunity to firmly reiterate the Government’s and, I hope, the Parliament’s, strong commitment to climate justice. As we debate today’s motion, I ask members to reflect on the extreme weather that is affecting communities across the world. We have the strongest El Niño on record, which is intensifying climate change, delivering higher temperatures and exacerbating risks globally.
Scotland is clearly not immune to that, but it is beyond doubt that the worst impacts will not be felt here or in any of the other historic emitters in the global north that are most responsible for climate change. They will instead be borne by the most vulnerable communities in the global south, which have contributed least to the crisis but are paying the highest price, which is an injustice.
Achieving climate justice is not simply an environmental issue; it is a human issue that affects health, food security, economies and global stability. The accumulating impacts of the crisis will be felt everywhere, and we will all feel those impacts if we do not act to achieve climate justice for all communities. Without climate justice and without financially supporting the most climate-vulnerable communities, we put the world’s peace and security at risk. That is not only my view or the Scottish Government’s view; it is a position that is shared by experts.
Recently, the Scottish Parliament was the first Parliament to host a screening of “The People’s Emergency Briefing”. I thank the members who facilitated that screening, which the First Minister and I attended. In the film, I was struck by the contribution of Lieutenant General Richard Nugee, who is a former senior British Army officer. He talked about the impact of climate change on communities in the global south that are being forced to migrate to other countries and regions. They face pressures over basic resources such as water and are, in some cases, joining armed groups because they can no longer make a living from farming. He said that climate change posed the greatest risk to global and national security. He described a system that faces
“cascading crises”
in
“food, health, infrastructure, migration, energy and extreme weather”
that are all linked and will potentially all hit at the same time. If they are not addressed, they
“risk overwhelming government systems and eroding democratic stability.”
Civil unrest can be fuelled by food shortages, displacement from homes and a lack of access to water. Those are not future problems. Addressing climate change and achieving climate justice around the world is essential to national security and peace today. The politicians who deny the need for climate action and climate justice absolutely miss that point. Simply, climate injustice fuels instability that directly affects United Kingdom security. Those who want to be in government but deny the need for intervention and support for the global south are proving their unsuitability for power.
Climate justice remains at the heart of the Scottish National Party Government’s climate and international work, which reflects our values and responsibilities in an interconnected world.
Can the cabinet secretary explain how the decision today to approve the new Peterhead 2 gas-fired power station delivers security of energy supply or tackles climate change?
In my previous role as energy minister, I would have been happy to debate energy security and its impact on our way of life. I want to concentrate my remarks on climate justice and the need for investment in the communities that face the greatest impacts caused by weather events associated with climate change but also by the lack of investment in their infrastructure.
Let me outline some of the actions that we are taking on our commitments. Since 2012, Scotland has supported community-led climate resilience in some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries through our world-leading climate justice fund. In Malawi, our support has helped restore access to safe drinking water after climate-related flooding had contaminated local water supplies. In Zambia, disabled people are shaping local plans for floods and droughts through community committees, which gives them a voice, and they are also coming up with solutions. In Rwanda, women wanted to earn an income by restoring climate-damaged land, but childcare responsibilities stood in their way of doing so, which is why we helped to establish community childcare centres—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will in a second.
We helped establish community childcare centres to enable women to work on vital climate restoration projects.
Our approach is simple. Those who are most affected by climate change and its impacts on their communities know what they need, and we are there to work with them to shape the response.
There is a review of the climate justice fund. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that community access programmes will continue to be funded through Scotland-based organisations? Will she also recognise the calls for a six-month bridging fund for those organisations that are currently in receipt of the climate justice fund until the review is over and the next round of funding opens up?
First, I have some more information on how we work with partners. It is not just Scotland-based organisations that we work with—there are also in-country organisations, which is really important. When we work with organisations such as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, they have the ability to work with in-country partners that they have established links with. We will not be deploying resources and solutions to communities—David Green is trying to signal something to me, but I have not quite worked out what it is. I will be able to give him more information on that point as I go forward.
Some of the impacts of climate change cannot be avoided in the global south. Homes are destroyed and livelihoods are lost. Sometimes, what is lost cannot be replaced. That is why we became the first Government to commit dedicated funding for climate-related loss and damage. In the previous session of Parliament, we mobilised more than £10 million for loss and damage, including for projects in East Africa, the Pacific, the Andean Highlands and the Bay of Bengal. The women for the world project supported indigenous Maasai women in Kenya to play a greater role in local decision making on land management, conservation and climate adaptation.
We are also sharing our learning on our loss and damage fund and how we have deployed it, because we have not just pledged it; we are deploying it in programmes with other Governments, particularly with other devolved Governments that we speak to in partnership with our Regions4 and Under2 Coalition partners. Indeed, some of our bilaterals in the conferences of the parties that we go to help us to assist them with programmes that they want to get off the ground.
Achieving climate justice is not just about the programmes that we support; it is about how we use our voice and stand up for our values. Our funding for loss and damage at COP26 helped build the momentum for the creation of the first dedicated global loss and damage fund at COP28. Creating the fund, though, was only the beginning. Just last week, we saw an important milestone, with the fund for responding to loss and damage board provisionally setting aside US$21.6 million in response to the devastating floods in Nepal. I warmly welcome that decision.
I want to build on this at COP31. I will go to COP31 to champion climate justice, to talk about what our loss and damage fund has achieved, to encourage the deployment of the UN loss and damage fund to get programmes on the ground, and to champion the role of regions and devolved Governments in accelerating climate action and resilience, including in supporting efforts to mobilise greater climate finance. It is very important that we have that position so that we can go to these international events and amplify the key priorities, particularly of devolved Governments. Next week, I will bring together a range of voices, including young people, climate activists, people with disabilities and those involved in delivering our programmes in partner countries, for the round table ahead of COP31.
Global climate justice also requires a coalition of the willing to come together and advance action. We are currently the president of Regions4, which is a global network of largely global south subnational Governments. Through our presidency, we are strengthening co-operation on adaptation, resilience and biodiversity, and ensuring that devolved Governments have a stronger voice on the international stage. In fact, I was at the biodiversity COP—the 17conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity—in Armenia last week, where we were recognised by the UN organisers and had our own day of plenary sessions. As subnational, devolved and regional Governments, we were able to show how we are acting in a range of climate action and nature restoration activities.
We are also the outgoing co-chair of the Under2 Coalition. We have served three terms as the co-chair, during which we founded the knowledge-sharing platforms that are the just transition task force and the net zero futures policy forum, which continue to promote and share best practice. As we step down from that role, we leave behind a stronger and more ambitious coalition that is united in its determination to reach net zero and also to not wait for state actors to take action but to carry on using the powers that we have.
As I have set out, the Government’s action on the international stage is underpinned by an unwavering commitment to climate justice. Turning to the motion that is before us, let us consider what climate justice looks like in practice. It means getting climate finance to vulnerable communities before disaster strikes, helping them to build resilience and adapt to a changing climate. It means giving countries that are suffering from the worst impacts of climate change the tools to protect lives and livelihoods while supporting a just transition that creates opportunity for people. Above all, it means leaving future generations a world that is safer, fairer and more secure, so that people can stay in the communities where they want to stay. People do not, as the far right would have us believe, want to leave home and go elsewhere. We have a responsibility to assist them in that endeavour.
The decisions that we take in this decade will shape the world that our children inherit, and that debate matters. In stark contrast to global reductions in aid—including, sadly, by Westminster—the Scottish Government remains firmly committed to climate justice. Through the programme for government, we have committed to continue and grow the climate justice fund beyond the £36 million that was invested in the previous parliamentary session, including support for loss and damage. I am extremely proud to be part of a Government that is keeping its promises in that regard. Despite the limited resources, we are supporting communities that face the greatest impact of a climate crisis that they did little to cause. The impact on the global north will be catastrophic if we do not invest in those communities and help Governments in the global south.
Today, we have an opportunity to send a clear and positive message that the Parliament is united in our commitment to climate justice, as we were in the previous parliamentary session. In that regard, I am happy to say that I will support the positive amendments from some of the other parties. However, I will be rejecting the amendments that question the need for that commitment.
I move,
That the Parliament reaffirms its commitment to climate justice, accepting that those in the Global South who have done the least to cause climate change are facing the worst impacts, and recognises that Scotland’s commitment to play its role in the global response to tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, including addressing climate related loss and damage, is guided by the principles of climate justice, fairness and global solidarity.
15:47
I thank the Government for bringing to the Parliament for its consideration the important topic of international climate justice, merely weeks prior to COP31 in Antalya. Although the world situation has changed dramatically since the optimism of COP26 in my home city of Glasgow, the need for global solidarity on climate change remains strong. The UK has an incredibly strong track record on climate change action. The ground-breaking Climate Change Act 2008, which was introduced under Gordon Brown’s Government, set the first legally binding climate change mitigation targets for a country, and later UK Governments, alongside their counterparts here in Scotland, have, time after time, risen to the challenge that we all face due to climate change.
Although we can certainly be proud of our record, the world that we live in is rapidly changing. Last week, the United Nations Environment Programme noted in its emissions gap report for 2026 that, even in the best-case scenario, the world is looking at an overshoot beyond 1.5°C to 1.7°C to 1.8°C and that, without massive new intervention on a global scale, we are heading for a world that is 2.6°C warmed by the end of this century.
We should all know what that means. It will dramatically increase flooding and drought for Scotland and increase desertification, extreme weather and water scarcity across large swathes of the earth. It will be a world of extremes, with the long-term consequences of dramatically increased refugee flows and economic disruption. We are already living in that world, yet we know that things will get worse before they get better. In Scotland, we live in a country with a strong and robust state capacity to deal with a challenging climate, but many countries around the world—especially many of the poorest, which have historically contributed least to carbon emissions—will bear the brunt of the planet’s new and more extreme weather conditions.
Commonwealth island nations such as Tuvalu face seeing their entire nation submerged by rising seas, while countries such as Kenya and Nigeria face dramatic desertification caused by a combination of elements, including the pressures of rising populations and, again, climate change. For that reason, Labour will always support international solidarity, stand with our global neighbours and work towards building a world in which no person needs to leave their country due to climatic pressures.
Our amendment seeks to strengthen the Government’s motion in the spirit of cross-party collaboration. Last year, the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on international development published a report on Scotland’s international development funding, and we would like its recommendations on transparency to be fully embraced in the Scottish Government’s aid work.
For example, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund has expressed concern that a lot of the expenditure could be better targeted through local programmes that it and other Scotland-based charities are engaged with in countries around the world, rather than the expenditure disappearing into large international funds. Perhaps there could be more focus on considering what we can do to maximise impact through Scottish charities. For example, the share of the climate justice fund that goes towards loss and damage could potentially be increased towards 50 per cent.
We could also look at having a climate access window through the global solidarity fund, so that more of the fund is directed towards community-based programmes—that could be useful and worth the Government’s consideration. It would mean that Scotland could champion international best practice and, as I am sure that every member agrees with the principle of “love thy neighbour”, our aid budget could be distributed in the most effective way possible and championed by Scots around the world. We want every penny to go towards those who will benefit most from the funding. In the spirit of public sector reform, I hope that the Government will actively support and engage with that proposal.
The other part of our amendment is about recognising the importance of the green transition if we want to achieve climate justice at home and abroad. That is not just about directly greening our own industrial, energy and transport systems but is about supporting and creating equitable supply chains globally. Allowing deindustrialisation, deskilling and rising poverty at home while importing cheap goods from polluting foreign industries leads to a lose-lose situation for everyone—that is the epitome of the tragedy of the commons. We must build supply chains in which living wages are paid to all workers and in which everyone, whether they are workers in the countries that provide the raw materials or those who create the finished goods, is treated with dignity and respect.
This is a broader topic than just climate justice—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am happy to give way.
I am interested that Paul Sweeney used the phrase “tragedy of the commons” in this context. Does he agree that countries around the world that chase after just one more fossil fuel licence are another example of the tragedy of the commons?
It is important to ensure that there is a managed move away from emissions. For example, substituting coal for gas is a graduated transition. We need to be clear about the trade-offs that are necessary to make that opportunity happen. One of the opportunities that we should support is the increased use of nuclear energy, which is an opportunity that the Green Party unfortunately did not agree with at its conference. It is important that we recognise the difficult trade-offs that are necessary in managing a just transition in order to avoid the tragedy of the commons. We need to be clear that it is not possible to simply switch things off and expect there not to be terrible consequences for working-class people, and we need to consider the issue in the broadest possible context.
If we want there to be a green economy in the UK, it must be the result of supporting a green economy around the world. Where countries show a complete disregard for the natural world, we must not continue with business as usual but deal directly with that injustice. The late Pope Francis noted in his great encyclical:
“We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it.”
We should therefore be proud of all the work that Scotland has done so far to see that vision enacted. I hope that, by supporting our amendment, the Parliament will help to build a stronger platform for greater climate justice at home and abroad.
I move amendment S7M-01726.1, to insert at end:
“; believes that any overseas development assistance (ODA) should be disbursed with the highest levels of transparency and a focus on maximising its impact, and recognises the importance of a just transition to a green economy, both domestically and across Scotland’s international supply chains, to ensure climate justice for all.”
15:53
The motion is an absolute word salad. It is a bingo card of terms that will be meaningless to most folk in Scotland who are worrying about a cost of living crisis, their expensive electricity, gas, diesel and other fuel bills and a flat economy that is resulting in a lack of jobs and wage growth. In addition, the term “global south” feels like an outdated label that obscures more than it reveals. At the moment, the so-called global south includes new economic giants such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and several others.
We also have many countries that are growing faster than most developed economies, and certainly at rates much higher than Scotland’s. Asian countries such as Vietnam and South American countries are growing quickly. With the oil boom in Guyana, it is growing at more than 20 per cent. Sub-Saharan countries such as Ethiopia, Rwanda and Uganda are all growing at extremely fast rates.
Together, those countries account for a substantial share of global economic growth and they are increasing development, industrial production and innovation. In many cases, they are now the drivers of the global economy rather than countries that are in need of aid. No wonder many leaders of African countries, such as President Museveni of Uganda, have told European countries to copy China and India and seek to invest fairly in countries’ industries and robust energy systems rather than giving them lectures and grants that seem to do nothing to promote the long-term development of those countries.
Does the member understand that the reason why we talk about grants and not just loans is that a lot of those climate-vulnerable countries are also in debt? They cannot afford healthcare or education because of an economic global system that is stacked up against them. That is why grants are so important. Does the member understand that?
The point that I am making is that those grants are not really going to long-term solutions. I will come on to that later.
It is a truism that the poorer a country is, the more vulnerable it is to natural disasters, including weather events. However, it is not clear that those events are increasing. Annual deaths from climate-related disasters have declined by more than 96 per cent globally over the past century. That is because, as the world has got richer, we have had more energy and more technology, and those things have enabled us to deal with events far better. The sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report, which is the basis of current attribution in climate science, sees an increase in hotter weather, but it also highlights no detected increases in global flooding and global drought, and especially no increase in tropical storms—indeed, no increases in most extreme events.
It is not clear what climate justice we are talking about, especially when we consider that Scotland produces only around 0.08 per cent of current global emissions and that China has burned more coal in the past three years than the entire world did in the whole of the 19th century.
Every Sunday, churches of all denominations throughout Scotland make collections and give to organisations such as SCIAF. Hundreds of millions of pounds come from people in Scotland who fundamentally disagree with what the member is saying and who understand that we have a responsibility to help communities that are most at risk. Is the member saying that they should not do that? Is he saying that the Government should not do that?
I am saying that any money has to be spent effectively, and currently I do not think that it is.
If we are perhaps talking about investing in very poor countries—this goes to the cabinet secretary’s point—to build infrastructure and cheap, affordable and reliable energy systems or, in short, to help to build proper long-term sustainable systems and proper resilience, I might welcome that. Indeed, President Museveni might welcome that.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not. Thank you.
However, that is not what we are doing. Investment seems opaque and it is directed through multiple organisations and agencies. Looking through the Scottish Government website, I note that projects seem weak and flaky—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am making progress.
A lot of money seems to go to studies, such as £1 million for
“a pilot to assess the effectiveness of humanitarian financial architecture as a mechanism for disbursing loss and damage funding.”
I do not know what that means either. More seems to go to international advocacy programmes, such as £206,000 to support climate youth negotiators.
Will the member take an intervention so that I can answer his question?
No. I am progressing with my points.
Is that value for money? Is the money being spent wisely? Does anyone know? Meanwhile, Scotland and, indeed, the UK are in ever deeper financial difficulty. Scotland has its £5 billion black hole. The UK as a whole is borrowing about £150 billion this year and it has an annual interest cost of nearly £100 billion.
You would have thought that, given that background, we would be seeking focus and value for money, but it does not seem so. Are we even asking whether the aid that we give is useful for the nations concerned and whether it is helping to build resilience in poorer nations or whether it is just virtue signalling?
Will the member give way on that point?
Not at the moment; I am making progress. I doubt that those projects add the sort of value and provide the help that President Museveni is looking for, or the long-term resilience that is needed.
That brings me to what we should be talking about, which is the lack of resilience in Scotland. As I have said before, we are facing a significant energy crunch this winter. Across Europe, we need more diesel, aviation fuel and natural gas. Conflicts in Iran and Russia are the proximate cause, but decades of delusional policy making have left Scotland, Britain and all of Europe badly exposed to energy reality. The United Kingdom and Scotland have the highest industrial costs in the world, with high prices for electricity, diesel and other fuel. We have crushed our North Sea production due to bad policy choices, which has hit jobs and investments. We have shut down or severely damaged most major industries and are now dependent on imports for virtually everything, including food, energy and the other basic building blocks of society, such as steel, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, fertilisers and medicine.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am concluding.
In Britain, that will be bad for us. We will have high fuel prices and other high-cost imports, but we still tend to get the supplies, even if they are at sky-high prices. With global shortages, what will happen if some countries do not get any of those supplies? That means that they will not get fuel, fertiliser or key medicines. That is the real global unfairness that has been driven particularly by net zero policies in the global north, which have left most of Europe desperately seeking imports.
We need to rediscover our resilience and be able to make things here again, so that we can be competitive, have cheap and abundant energy and maximise our own oil and gas resources. That would enable more resources to be available for poorer countries. If we seek to help poorer countries, we must do so effectively by seeking investment first and aid second, to help them to build resilient energy-rich and sustainable economies. That is how we deliver real justice and fairness.
I move amendment S7M-01726.2, to leave out from “reaffirms” to end and insert:
“must redefine its definition of climate justice, as harming the economic growth potential of the developing world is not justice; considers the reported pleas from leaders, including Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, to European leaders to invest in their countries instead of lecturing them, to represent evidence that debates of this kind are not welcomed in the developing world, and agrees that, given the cost of energy and what it views as a de-industrialisation crisis, the priority should be to provide cheap, abundant and reliable energy and ensure that well-paid jobs remain in Scotland.”
16:02
The timing of the debate could not be more critical. With climate impacts all around us and last week’s approval of the Jackdaw gas field, it is more important than ever then we reaffirm the need for real action to deliver climate justice. It is more important than ever that the Parliament restates the Paris agreement goals to keep the world well below 2°C of global heating and to fight for 1.5°C, because every fraction of a degree of temperature increase that we can halt saves lives and slows ecosystem collapse.
We have seen increasing climate impacts in Scotland, but the impacts of climate change will always fall the hardest on those who are the least responsible for them. Climate change does not impact everyone equally. The poorest half of the world’s population are only responsible for a tenth of global emissions but are the most exposed to climate risks. Climate change supercharges inequality. Women and girls often bear the brunt of climate change impacts that pose unique threats to livelihoods, health and safety. Recent floods in Nepal killed more than 1,200 people and 55 million people in East Africa were pushed into hunger following severe drought. Meanwhile, island nations such as Tuvalu and Kiribati are facing the existential threat of simply being wiped off the map as sea levels rise.
Real climate justice means that industrialised nations, such as Scotland, that have created the mess must also be the ones to lead the switch away from fossil fuels, cut emissions and support those who are most impacted. That is not a new or radical idea. Since 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has recognised that those in the global north countries should take the lead in tackling climate change and supporting adaptation efforts in global south countries. That commitment was reflected in the Paris agreement that was ratified a decade ago. Scotland has already played a leadership role in loss and damage finance and through the climate justice fund. Nicola Sturgeon was the first world leader to pledge money to address loss and damage at COP26 in Glasgow, which was a move that helped to build the momentum towards the global agreement to establish a fund at COP27 in Egypt.
Ultimately, the bill for planet adaptation will be unaffordable unless the global north makes a fair, just and rapid transition away from fossil fuels. I want to see the global leadership that Scotland demonstrated on the issue of loss and damage also being shown on the just transition. Therefore, I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s attendance at the international conference on the just transition away from fossil fuels next year, which is being hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland, where we could once again work with small independent states to turn dialogue into firm international action.
It is clear that Governments must take a science-based position on oil and gas exploration and ramp up clean, home-grown renewable energy. The climate scientists have been clear that we have more oil and gas than we can afford to burn if we want to prevent climate chaos. The International Energy Agency, the United Nations Environment Programme and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all state that new fossil fuel exploration risks our exceeding the 1.5°C threshold. The IPCC warned that emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure alone could surpass the remaining global carbon budget.
Those conclusions were highlighted in the UK Labour Government’s vision for the future of the North Sea, “North Sea Future Plan”, which was published just 12 months ago—so that Government’s decision to approve Jackdaw is nothing short of climate vandalism. It has been justified on the basis that it will reduce household bills, create jobs and support greater energy security, but none of those claims is based in reality. Jackdaw will meet only two months’ worth of the UK’s total gas demand. It will not bring down prices, which are set by volatile international markets. It will create only an additional 27 jobs. It does not make any sense at all, which is clearly why Donald Trump was one of the first people to welcome it last week.
The UK Government’s own calculations show that the additional emissions that will be generated by Jackdaw will result in a further 8,000 heat-related deaths and cause more than £16 billion-worth of global damages. Again, those in the global south, who have contributed nothing to this situation, will face the most devastating impacts of the decision.
My hope is that the UK Labour Government sees sense when it comes to Rosebank. If Jackdaw is a disaster, Rosebank would be catastrophic, as it would release seven times more carbon and would send the message to states around the world that they should double down on extracting every last drop of oil and gas.
If the Scottish Government believes the words that it has written in its motion, it must also take a more responsible position by standing against there being more and more fossil fuel exploration. Not so long ago the Scottish Government drafted an energy strategy that did just that, but its reckless decision today to approve a second gas-fired power station at Peterhead looks set to make us dependent on fossil gas for the next 25 years. It is another decision that sends the wrong message internationally: one of the most renewable-energy-rich countries in the world is approving new fossil fuel power stations in the middle of a climate crisis.
The Scottish Government must show the leadership that is needed for a just transition away from fossil fuels, at home and internationally, in line with the science and the Paris agreement goals. It must continue to support those globally who are suffering from climate breakdown and have done the least to cause it.
I move amendment S7M-01726.5, to insert at end:
“; reaffirms the importance of the Paris Agreement Goals to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C; accepts scientific evidence from the International Energy Agency, United Nations Environment Programme and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shows that new fossil fuel exploration risks exceeding the 1.5°C threshold; believes that new fossil fuel production beyond that which is currently approved, such as the proposed Rosebank oil field, will move the world out of alignment with the Paris Agreement Goals, and supports international dialogue and action on advancing a just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels.”
I call Finlay Carson to speak to and move amendment S7M-01726.4.
16:08
Climate change is real. It is happening across the world and there is no doubt that many countries in the global south experience a disproportionate share of its impacts, despite having contributed least to the problem. We recognise that fact and the devastating consequences that climate change is having on communities across the globe.
However, we must also recognise another reality: the effects of climate change are not confined to distant parts of the world but are increasingly being felt here, in Scotland. Over recent days, communities across the country have experienced significant flooding; damage to homes, businesses and infrastructure; and, tragically, loss of life. Many families are once again facing the anxiety and disruption that extreme weather events can bring.
I take this opportunity to put on the parliamentary record my profound shock and sadness at the death of Richard Baines during Sunday’s storm. Richard was a remarkable gentleman with an infectious enthusiasm for horticulture. He was widely respected as a leading figure in his field, and his outstanding work at Logan Botanic Gardens earned him, and his special place in Galloway, well-deserved national and international recognition. I am sure that everyone in the chamber will join me in sending our condolences to his wife, Liz, and to all his family and colleagues at this difficult time.
Presiding Officer, this debate should not be about simply what Scotland does overseas; it must also be about whether the Scottish Government is doing enough at home. International development and overseas aid are reserved matters under the devolution settlement. They are the responsibility of the UK Government. Yet the Scottish Government continues to commit substantial sums through its international climate justice fund, while many of the services and priorities that fall squarely within its own remit face increasing pressure.
For clarity, were the Conservatives to be in charge of the Scottish Government, would they stop all the programmes associated with climate justice, which assist Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda?
Yes, we would. We would call on the Scottish Government to do more work with the UK Government to ensure that those countries that are currently supported are supported in the right way.
I ask the current Scottish Government what discussions it has with the UK Government to ensure that the reserved fund is spent to ensure that those communities are supported. I have absolutely no doubt, cabinet secretary, that some worthwhile projects have been supported through that funding, whether in Malawi, Rwanda, Zambia or elsewhere. However, Scottish taxpayers already make a substantial contribution to UK overseas aid through a reserved UK Government budget. At a time of stretched public finances, many will question why SNP ministers are choosing to top that up with additional Scottish Government spending while devolved services at home face cuts and mounting pressure. Public finances are stretched, and when people expect this Parliament to focus on devolved responsibilities it is entirely reasonable to ask whether ministers have their priorities right. While money is being diverted overseas, serious challenges remain unresolved here, in Scotland.
The Scottish Government has repeatedly failed to meet its own tree-planting targets despite recognising the important role that woodland creation can play in carbon sequestration, biodiversity enhancement and climate resilience. Communities that are vulnerable to flooding continue to look for greater support and long-term protection. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service faces increased pressure from major incidents such as wildfires and extreme weather events, yet it has still been required to make difficult decisions about front-line service provision.
Communities across rural Scotland are right on the front line of environmental change, yet the Government has cut both the rural affairs budget and the agricultural budget. Meanwhile, our NHS continues to struggle with unacceptable waiting times, our justice system faces significant pressures and Scotland’s educational standards continue to decline from the levels that once made our system the envy of many across the world. That approach makes little sense.
Finlay Carson has rightly pointed out the impact of climate change in Scotland, which I appreciate. Does he therefore disagree with Kemi Badenoch, who wants to scrap all net zero targets and who intends to ban candidates from standing in the next general election if they speak up about net zero and climate change?
The focus of this debate is supposed to be on where the funding for protecting the climate comes from. The issues around why we are not achieving net zero have to do with the way that we are approaching it. We need to be far more pragmatic rather than virtue signalling, as this Government has done far too often in the past.
The approach that the Government has taken makes little sense. Farmers and land managers are not obstacles to environmental progress but essential partners in delivering it. Investment in agriculture supports food security, strengthens rural economies and enables the adoption of innovative and environmentally sustainable farming practices. If ministers are serious about tackling climate change, they should be investing in those managing our countryside rather than reducing the resources that are available to them.
Our amendment recognises that those in the global south often experience the most severe consequences of climate change, but it also recognises that this Parliament must focus on the responsibilities that it holds. We want to see greater investment in practical, economically viable measures that will reduce emissions in Scotland. We want to see more tree planting in the right places, better flood protection in vulnerable communities, stronger support for climate resilience and public services equipped to meet the challenges that are posed by a changing climate, with support for agriculture, forestry and environmental improvement delivered in a way that strengthens rural communities rather than undermines them.
We want to see a Scottish Government that focuses less on headline-grabbing international initiatives and more on delivering results for the people who elect it. Climate justice begins with taking responsibility for the powers that we have. The Scottish Government should leave overseas aid and international development funding to the UK Government and focus its efforts on supporting Scottish communities, Scottish businesses and Scottish public services. That is the purpose of our amendment and I urge members to support it.
I move amendment S7M-01726.4 to leave out from “reaffirms” to end and insert:
“recognises that those in the Global South often experience a disproportionate share of the impacts of climate change; notes, however, that international development and overseas aid are reserved matters under the devolution settlement and are therefore the responsibility of the UK Government; further notes that substantial sums have been committed through the Scottish Government’s International Climate Justice Fund at a time when other domestic priorities face increasing financial pressures; highlights concerns regarding pressures on justice, health and other public services, and calls on the Scottish Government to focus its resources on supporting Scottish communities, businesses and public services to reduce emissions, improve climate resilience and deliver practical environmental improvements in Scotland.”
I call Sanne Dijkstra-Downie to speak to and move amendment S7M-01726.3.
16:14
The climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges facing our generation. It is a challenge that demands urgent action at home and international co-operation, because we have only one atmosphere and it does not care about lines on a map.
Our historical responsibility for the causes of climate change demands an approach with fairness at its heart. Although the fathers of the industrial revolution may not have understood what happens when we burn large amounts of fossil fuels, for us the science is undeniable.
Given that another COP is approaching, we will, rightly, hear that climate change’s consequences are unequally shared. Although no country is immune to rising seas, floods, droughts and extreme weather, some, such as small island nations, face greater risks. Many also lack the resources to protect communities or rebuild after disasters that are made worse by climate change. However, climate justice is not just the right thing to do. As always, it is cheaper to prevent a disaster than to deal with the aftermath of one. Prevention includes flood defences, early-warning systems, drought-resistant agriculture and resilient infrastructure. Every pound that is spent on preparing for climate impacts can help to avoid much larger future costs. Climate justice involves sharing the costs of prevention, not leaving those countries to shoulder the much greater costs of recovery by themselves.
It is also about international resilience. A drought elsewhere pushes up food prices internationally. Flooding can close ports and affect industries, with widespread consequences. Damage to energy infrastructure disrupts electricity supplies. Food and water scarcity drives migration. Scotland is affected by all those things and more.
Time and again, climate finance promises have been made at COP. However, the reality is that the finance has not materialised on the scale that is needed. The UN Environment Programme’s 2025 adaptation gap report, “Running on Empty”, estimates that developing countries will need well over $300 billion every year for adaptation. So far, only about 10 per cent of that funding has materialised—and, when it has, too much of the support comes in the form of loans, adding to existing debt burdens and leaving countries paying for a crisis that they did little to create. We cannot claim to be helping countries to tackle climate change if the price of that help is pushing them further into debt.
That is why our amendment calls for rapid progress not just in mobilising climate finance but for grant-based funding to be prioritised over loans, where possible. Grants can help countries to invest in their futures without forcing them to choose between climate action and essential public services such as healthcare, education and housing. Grants do not push the problem of repayments on to future generations.
At COP, Scotland has a responsibility to use its voice on the international stage to champion that principle of fairness. However, international solidarity must also be matched by action at home. We cannot credibly call for climate justice abroad while failing to make the changes that are needed to reduce our contribution to the problem. We must drive down domestic demand for fossil fuels and accelerate the decarbonisation of heating, transport and industry. That means making it easier for people to heat their homes affordably without relying on fossil fuels; improving public transport and supporting the transition to cleaner vehicles; and helping Scottish businesses and industries cut emissions while remaining competitive. Any solutions that are offered must be practical, affordable and fair—and, as with climate finance abroad, households here at home that are least able to afford the transition must not be left to shoulder the costs alone.
It is a core Liberal Democrat belief that climate justice means understanding that our actions in Scotland and on the world stage are inseparable. Cutting our emissions at home limits the impact on vulnerable communities around the world. Fair climate finance helps those communities to adapt, recover and build a more sustainable future. We cannot afford to ignore either of those responsibilities, because climate action is about not only the protection of our environment but fairness between nations, between generations and for the people who have done the least to cause the crisis but who stand to lose the most.
I move amendment S7M-01726.3, to insert at end:
“urges the Scottish Government to advocate at COP31 for rapid progress in scaling up the mobilisation of climate finance, with grant-based finance prioritised over loans to ensure that climate-vulnerable countries are not pushed further into debt as they respond to the climate crisis; believes that there is a strong need to drive down domestic demand for fossil fuels combined with the need to decarbonise heating, transport and industry, and highlights that this must happen in order both to meet net zero objectives and to uphold the commitment to climate justice.”
We move to the open debate, during which the time limit for speeches is five minutes.
16:19
Around the world, the devastating impacts of climate change are not a distant threat—they are very much a daily reality. The extreme weather that much of Scotland experienced over the weekend shows that those impacts are also much closer to home than they have been in the past, which demonstrates the growing threat of climate damage to all nations. However, that is nothing compared with the experiences of communities in the global south, who are suffering the most severe consequences of climate damage despite being those who did the least to cause it. During my involvement with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, that point has come up time and again at meetings, and it is also a continual theme at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences.
The motion that we are discussing today shows that Scotland recognises that reality and understands that genuine climate action cannot be just about achieving our domestic net zero targets but must be rooted in global solidarity, equity and the protection of human rights.
I am proud that Scotland has made a conscious decision to lead the way when it comes to our contribution to climate justice. Are we perfect? No, we are not. Do we have a lot more to do? Yes, we do. However, in 2012 we became the first nation in the world to launch a dedicated climate justice fund. Over the course of the previous parliamentary session, that fund was trebled to £36 million. In addition to the Scottish Government’s £24 million climate just communities programme, Scotland is moving away from the traditional top-down aid and towards locally led participatory action in Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia.
That means putting marginalised groups such as women, young people and people with disabilities at the heart of decision making. In Malawi, Scotland’s initiatives explicitly target women and youth to build agricultural and disaster resilience. Erratic weather is disrupting Malawi’s two main growing seasons, leading to hunger, malnutrition, stunted development and loss of life. Extreme weather events have decimated crops, damaged infrastructure and led to food insecurity and the spread of disease.
In Rwanda, 65 per cent of the projects that the Scottish Government funds are embedded directly into local government priority contracts, ensuring systemic long-term change—I say that in response to Mr Massey’s earlier comments. Many third sector organisations across Scotland are also involved in climate justice work, including Aid for Education, which is based in my constituency. Aid for Education has undertaken some remarkable work and was established by Douglas and Sarah Kakooza. Douglas is from Rwanda, and Sarah is from Northern Ireland. The slogan of their charity is:
“Helping Rwanda’s children have a future”.
How can anyone disagree with that slogan? If a small charity from Inverclyde can play its part in helping future generations in Rwanda, the wealthy nations in the global north certainly need to do much more than they are doing.
Scotland has also led the world by breaking the taboo on loss and damage. For too long, the international community completely ignored the hard truth that some climate impacts cannot be adapted to. Homes are lost, cultures are eroded and land is permanently swallowed by rising seas. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization—FAO—has warned that the strong to very strong El Niño effect will contribute to 2.6 million Malawians being food insecure from now until next March. That is a horrendous figure to discuss, but it is also the reality of the situation.
The Scottish Government has since allocated £10 million to support non-economic and slow-onset loss and damage across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, but we cannot be complacent, and groups such as Stop Climate Chaos Scotland are rightly pushing Scotland to go further.
The calls are clear. We must continue to increase our climate justice fund from 2027 onwards, deepen our commitments to loss and damage, and use our voice on the international stage to push the multilateral fund for responding to loss and damage to move faster—I say to Mr Carson that we must also use our voice in that way regardless of whether matters are devolved. As we look towards future global summits, Scotland must continue to step forward, not backwards.
I urge colleagues from across the chamber to reaffirm today that Scotland’s commitment to climate justice is unwavering. I say to Mr Massey that, in attempting to become more climate resilient ourselves, we cannot forget that our way of life has contributed to the climate chaos that communities across the global south have experienced for decades, notwithstanding developments that are taking place at the moment, despite their carbon footprint being minuscule compared with ours.
16:24
Some members might remember that I recently had the pleasure of securing a members’ business debate to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the founding of Blantyre in Malawi, which, of course, shares its name and deep ties with Blantyre in my constituency. During that debate, contributions from members highlighted the pioneering partnership working that had developed between Scotland and Malawi over the years. Today, much of that work is related to climate change. Malawi is a prime example of a country in the global south that is referred to in the motion that is before us—one that has contributed relatively little to climate change but is facing some of the worst impacts. Agriculture is very important to the country’s economy, so extreme weather and water shortages can have a huge impact.
The Scottish Government has long advocated for the principle that the global north holds the largest and most immediate moral responsibility to address the climate crisis. It is a matter of justice. That principle of climate justice and a commitment to support the global south to take climate action were embedded in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. Scotland was the first nation to commit funds specifically to that end and, in 2012, launched the climate justice fund. That fund supports community-led projects in countries including Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia, with a focus on climate adaptation, resilient livelihoods, water and sanitation, disaster risk reduction and food security. Scotland was also the first global north Government to commit funding explicitly to address climate change-related loss and damage. That funding supports communities experiencing climate impacts that cannot be prevented through adaptation alone. Those community-led projects are prime examples of climate justice work: they have local ownership at their core, with communities actively designing and implementing climate interventions rather than simply being the recipients of aid via more traditional, passive routes. Taking that co-designing approach to finding solutions that are rooted in local context and driven by local needs means that very targeted and effective work can be carried out for comparatively small sums.
During my recent members’ business debate, which I referred to earlier, I was grateful to Clare Adamson for describing the work that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee undertook in the previous parliamentary session to look at how the relatively small pots of money that were provided to Malawi to map wells in the country turned out to be vital when the country experienced terrible flooding.
Relatedly, I thank Water Witness International, a charity that is based here in Edinburgh, for sending over a briefing ahead of this debate. The charity is a long-term partner of the Scottish Government and, most recently, was a delivery partner in the climate just communities programme. It leads action, research and advocacy to ensure that people can access the water that they need to thrive and are protected against floods, drought, pollution, ecosystem degradation and water conflict.
Does Clare Haughey agree that access to water is also a gendered issue? If they do not have ready access to water, women have to take hours out of their days, away from other activities, to collect it.
I absolutely agree with that, and I add that children bear a burden of collecting water that, perhaps, is not as widely recognised as women’s role is. The burden also takes children away from education.
Most climate impacts are water related, so investing in fair, well-managed water projects—such as the ones that Water Witness International champions—is central to building climate resilience and protecting those who are hit hardest. As climate change intensifies, the pressure on water supply and the decisions on who controls it, who profits from it and whose needs come first become a matter of climate justice. In order to stand any chance of tackling the climate emergency, and to best support people who are already suffering from its impacts, we, in Scotland and internationally, must all work together.
The SNP Scottish Government is committed to doing all that we can to tackle the climate emergency and to support climate justice in the global south. As well as providing funding, we are committed to being a bridge builder on climate justice internationally, including utilising our convening and influencing position to amplify other voices. Devolved Governments such as ours play a crucial role in tackling climate change in our countries, so it is only right that we work to enhance the visibility and influence of other devolved Governments, cities and regions in multilateral climate discussions. Doing so ensures that voices such as Scotland’s and those of our partners help to shape global progress.
We should not indulge in the culture wars that spring up around climate change. I have been quite shocked by what I have heard from Finlay Carson, but I was not so shocked by what I heard from Reform, as I heard what I expected to hear.
We cannot shirk our duty to future generations by not taking our share of responsibility for those who are most affected today.
16:30
It is right that the Parliament reaffirms its commitment to climate justice. It is right that we accept the fundamental truth that those in the global south who have done the least to cause the climate crisis are already facing its worst impacts. It is right that we recognise Scotland’s role in the global response to climate change, biodiversity loss and climate-related loss and damage. That response must be guided by justice, fairness and, of course, global solidarity.
The science is clear, and a human cost has already been paid. As we have heard, communities in Africa, Asia, the Pacific and Latin America face intensifying droughts and floods, rising seas, failed harvests and the loss of homes, livelihoods and lives. Such effects are increasing year on year. Climate change is real and is being experienced right now.
I was glad that the national emergency briefing, which the cabinet secretary attended, was shown in the Parliament before the recess, and I hope that it will be shown on UK national television.
We are talking about the reality of climate change and how it is being experienced right now, so it is concerning that fewer than 30 per cent of MSPs are in the chamber. We must ask ourselves whether the issue is important to the other 70 per cent.
These are the present realities for people in the global south who bear almost no historical responsibility for the emissions that have driven climate change. Climate justice demands that those of us in industrialised nations, whose development was built on the burning of fossil fuels, accept our responsibilities and act accordingly.
Scotland has sought to lead. We have talked about COP26, when Scotland helped to break the long-standing deadlock on loss and damage. Scotland was the first nation to pledge to the loss and damage fund. That was not a symbolic measure but a concrete demonstration that a small country can still show moral leadership.
Paul McLennan is making a strong argument for the action that we are taking. Does he agree that, in order to tackle the climate crisis, we also need to tackle the debt crisis and that we should encourage the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work collaboratively on that?
I agree. I have mentioned the loss and damage fund. Global debt is a matter that is reserved to the UK Government, but I fully support what David Green has said in that regard.
I also agree with other points that David Green’s Liberal Democrat colleague made. We must continue the approach of pushing for adequate grant-based finance in addition to existing aid budgets. That is fundamental. We must ensure that support reaches communities on the front line and is not diluted by bureaucracy or debt. As we have heard, that gives power back to local communities in the countries that have been mentioned.
Climate justice is not just about what happens far away; it is about providing consistency at home. In my constituency, we see the local face of a global problem. The coastline is already experiencing the pressures of rising sea levels, coastal erosion and more intense storms. That has been the case in East Lothian for at least the past 10 to 15 years. Communities along the coast, including those in Dunbar, understand what changing weather patterns mean for homes, farmland, infrastructure and biodiversity.
On the point that Finlay Carson made, farmers and land managers in the Lammermuirs know about the growing unpredictability of the seasons. That is why we need to do more in Scotland to tackle climate change. At the same time, our county is becoming a significant centre for renewable energy.
I am a bit disappointed by the reaction of some members. It is quite clear that we recognise the importance of funding the global south so that it can adapt to climate change. There has been faux outrage, and members are better than that.
Does Paul McLennan recognise that international aid is reserved and that the Scottish Parliament should do more in working with the UK Government to ensure that countries that are affected are adequately funded and supported?
I go back to my point about grant-based finance, which is incredibly important. I know that the cabinet secretary engages with UK Government colleagues to push them on that point, and I think that the UK Government should be doing more on that.
To go back to the point about renewable energy, offshore wind developments, including the one at Berwick Bank, which has huge potential, place East Lothian at the centre of Scotland’s contribution to clean power. We must seize that opportunity to create skilled jobs, strengthen energy security and ensure that communities share the benefits while also protecting our natural environment and adapting to the change that is already under way.
Biodiversity loss and climate change are also inseparable. The healthy ecosystems that we have heard about, such as peatlands, wetlands, woodlands and marine habitats, store carbon, provide a buffer against extreme weather and support the wildlife and landscapes that define my county and our country. Duncan Massey said that Scotland’s contribution to emissions is around 0.08 per cent, but we still have a responsibility to play our part for people in Scotland and the rest of the world.
Scotland’s work on nature restoration, peatland recovery and protecting our seas is all part of the same justice agenda. We cannot adopt a “We’re all right, Jack” attitude and just move on. We have done that for a number of years and that is why the global south has suffered. When we degrade nature, we undermine the resilience of vulnerable communities everywhere, including our own communities. Fairness requires a just transition here, too, and workers and communities must not be left behind as we move away from fossil fuels.
Global solidarity means that we must not lecture others while failing to meet our own targets or allowing short-term interests to dilute long-term responsibility. It means supporting international mechanisms to deliver real resources for adaptation, resilience and protection against loss and damage and it means recognising that Scotland’s voice is strongest when we act with ambition and integrity, whether in international fora or in the decisions that we take in this chamber.
The role of the East Lothian climate action network—ELCAN—cannot be understated, and nor can the role of other climate networks in Scotland because they lead, co-ordinate and motivate local action.
The motion before us is not radical; it is necessary. I urge members to support it and, more important, to ensure that the commitment that it expresses is matched by continued practical action at home and abroad, for the sake of communities that are already suffering the impacts of climate change and for the generations who will inherit the consequences of what we do, or fail to do, now.
16:36
This has been a really helpful debate so far, because of the importance of climate justice and of the work that we are doing on it in the Scottish Parliament. Although it is not a devolved matter, we can make a real difference on it here.
I begin by saying that we live in one of the most beautiful countries in the world, from the hardy landscape of the Western Isles to the stunning scenery around Montrose on the east coast. I feel privileged to represent a constituency that reflects Scotland’s diversity, with its thriving town centres, bustling high streets, farms, rural communities and open countryside, including the absolutely stunning Clyde valley.
We know that enabling a just transition to renewable energy is absolutely vital to protecting Scotland’s natural beauty and reducing our contributions to climate change. As many members have said, such change impacts people across the globe who themselves have done very little to contribute to it but whose communities are paying the price. That is why we should all care deeply about climate justice.
Across my constituency, the transition to a greener future that will help to tackle our contributions to climate change is already visible. Renewable energy plays an increasingly important role, particularly through onshore wind farms such as Kype Muir, which stands as a testament to Scotland’s commitment to tackling climate change and contributes to nearby communities such as Stonehouse by supporting local groups and causes through sharing its profits.
I have already mentioned Montrose. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of visiting the Seagreen offshore wind farm just off the coast there. It is Scotland’s largest offshore wind farm and can provide more than 1,075MW of electricity, which helps to power almost two thirds of Scottish homes. Scotland is a world leader in promoting the development of renewable energy and in doing our bit as part of a commitment to achieving climate justice. We have onshore and offshore wind power; tidal power is provided by facilities such as Orbital, the world’s most powerful operational tidal turbine, based in powerful tidal streams near Orkney; and our publicly owned water companies make significant investment in pumped storage hydro power.
There is, of course, much to do to ensure that we are fully able to utilise our nation’s renewables bounty. Scotland’s energy bonanza from the oil and gas boom was squandered by successive Westminster Governments’ misuse of money that could have been used to help turbocharge the transition and contribute to climate justice abroad.
We have had ministerial consent to work not only on climate justice but on overseas development since 2005. Does the member agree that some members may be choosing—
The minister should face the front; the audio system is designed to work that way.
I apologise, Presiding Officer. I guess that it is only human to want to face the person you are speaking to.
Does Mr Kerr agree with me that some members are choosing to ignore the fact that we have had ministerial consent to carry out the work since 2005? Does he also agree that some members are taking a deliberately narrow view because that fact does not fit with their ideology? Will he join me in calling out a UK Government that has made a 90 per cent reduction in international development assistance for countries such as Africa and our partner countries, including Malawi?
Absolutely. That is vital context. As I will come on to cover later in my remarks, the distinction between devolved and reserved competences is quite blurred in relation to a whole host of topics, and the impact that that distinction has on people in Scotland, and across the world, does not always fall neatly into those two lines. I join the minister in condemning the cut that the UK Government has made.
I come to the point made this week by Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has finally come to see what the SNP had seen in the past: had the UK Government followed the example of another small country of around 5.5 million people—Norway—we would now have a sovereign wealth fund worth more than £1 trillion. That is just one example of the cultural and economic vandalism that has been visited on Scotland through catastrophically poor stewardship of our nation’s assets and people.
An energy welfare fund has been mooted, somewhat belatedly, but it appears that that might bypass Scotland entirely. The SNP firmly believes that the money should be ring fenced and invested in renewable and low-carbon projects in Scotland. Such energy wealth should not be used to prop up a failing Westminster system. We have seen what happens when that is the case. GB Energy was supposed to employ 1,000 people in Scotland and help to drive forward renewables development. However, that was another broken promise made by Labour during the 2024 election campaign, just like its promises on saving Grangemouth and on bringing down people’s energy bills by £300 a year. It has turned out to be about as honest as former Scottish Labour leader Lord Sarwar’s deeply held opposition to the House of Lords.
Having engaged with many stakeholders, I have concerns that the UK Government’s participation in damaging the Scottish renewables energy sector is far from finished. The long-term national blueprint that the National Energy Systems Operator is developing—the strategic spatial energy plan—could seriously risk investment, depending on the pathways that it sets out that are open to the UK Government. Only two of the six pathways would support our offshore wind pipeline and provide the grid connections that are required, potentially costing tens of billions of pounds of investment.
I hope that common sense will prevail. However, looking at Westminster’s record on ensuring Scotland’s energy and the economy makes me quite sceptical.
Although I firmly believe that Scotland needs the full powers of independence to address many of the deep-seated challenges that we face, I am also proud that the SNP Scottish Government continues to use the powers available to it to champion efforts to tackle the climate crisis and, crucially, to uphold our commitment to climate justice. The cross-party support in the chamber has been very welcome.
Putting climate justice at the heart of what the Government does sends a signal about the nation that we want to be. Climate justice is a people-centred, human rights-based approach that recognises that climate change is not only an environmental issue but poses questions of fairness and equality. It acknowledges that those who have contributed least to the climate crisis—who are often people who do not enjoy the quality of life that we enjoy here—are frequently the ones who suffer its most severe impacts.
I realise that I am running over time, Presiding Officer. I will close by saying that I am proud to support the Scottish Government’s commitment to climate justice, to do our part to reduce emissions and to ensure that climate action goes hand in hand with fairness, equality and human rights, both at home and abroad.
16:33
I welcome the Government’s motion. I want to focus on why achieving international climate justice is not simply a moral obligation but an economic necessity.
Scotland has long recognised the polluter-pays principle in our approach to environmental protection: those who cause pollution should bear the costs of addressing it. We are a prosperous nation whose development has benefited from generations of fossil fuel use. That brings with it a responsibility to help to lead on the transition to a low-carbon economy, including supporting those countries that contributed least to climate change but face some of the most severe consequences. That is a moral argument, but there is a compelling economic argument, too. Take food, for example. The UK imports around 40 per cent of its food, and we are particularly dependent on overseas producers for our fruit and vegetable supplies. Many of those supply chains run through countries that are already exposed to extreme heat, drought, flooding and other climate-related risks.
The UK Government’s own food security report identifies climate change as a risk to the agricultural capacity of some of our key trading partners. When harvests fail, the consequences do not stop at the borders of the affected countries. Reduced production can mean higher global prices, disrupted supply chains and increased costs for households here in Scotland. At a time when families are already under pressure on the cost of living, we should understand that helping communities overseas to protect their agriculture, water supplies and infrastructure is also an investment in our own resilience. We all understand the importance of investing in resilience before disaster strikes, rather than waiting until homes and infrastructure have been destroyed and then paying a much greater cost for recovery.
In an interconnected global economy, climate damage thousands of miles away can become a cost of living pressure here in Scotland. I appreciate that this debate is probably quite triggering for those who are on the right, which might explain why most of them are not here in the chamber. However, there is another consequence that we must be prepared to discuss honestly.
David Barratt has made an excellent point about the exposure of our economy to global supply chains. For example, the Russian invasion of Ukraine had an effect on global grain prices. Such inflationary effects mean that traditional monetary policy is largely ineffective.
However, does he agree that there are instances in which our domestic producers have faced increased costs whereas those in other countries have not, and that the introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism next year will significantly help to stabilise domestic industries in cases in which they have been unfairly penalised?
I will be perfectly honest and say that I am not entirely familiar with that aspect, but I am happy to look into it. I am always willing to be educated.
There are other consequences that we must be prepared to discuss honestly. Migration is a clear example. When people’s homes are repeatedly destroyed, when crops fail, when water supplies become unreliable and when livelihoods can no longer be sustained, people might have little choice but to move. Climate change is not the sole cause of migration, but the evidence is clear that climate hazards can contribute to displacement, directly through disasters or indirectly by undermining livelihoods. I say to those who are concerned about migration that if they want to reduce the pressures that can force people to leave their homes, they should care about tackling climate change and helping communities to adapt to its effects.
I strongly agree with David Barratt’s sentiment. I wonder whether he shares the sense of irony that I feel that those who are most likely to say that the climate has always changed are also those who are least willing to accept that people have always migrated and that migration is, always has been and always will be a fundamental part of the human story.
Yes. There is probably a depressing crossover with flat earthers as well.
We cannot credibly demand that people remain in places where they can no longer sustain their livelihoods while refusing to help address the conditions that drive them away.
Scotland cannot resolve such global challenges alone, but we can help to build resilience, support vulnerable communities and demonstrate that a just transition is possible. We can lead by example and, where we lead, others will follow. That means continuing to reduce our own emissions, ensuring that workers and communities at home are supported through the transition and maintaining a meaningful contribution to international climate finance.
Scotland has a record to build on. We established the climate justice fund in 2012, becoming the first country to commit funds specifically to climate justice. We were also the first country in the global north to commit funding to addressing loss and damage. We should be proud of that leadership, but, in turn, our ambition must be for it to lead to a lasting impact for the communities who need it most.
Our prosperity gives us the capacity to act. Our commitment to the polluter-pays principle gives us a framework for understanding responsibility. Our economic interests give us an additional reason to act. International climate justice is not about making a choice between helping others and protecting Scotland; it is about making an investment in a more resilient world, a more stable global economy and Scotland’s own future prosperity.
We move to closing speeches.
16:49
I start by associating myself and my party with the tribute to Richard Baines that was expressed by Finlay Carson and we send our best wishes to his family and friends.
As we have heard from member across the chamber this afternoon, this debate is about both people and our planet. It is about the livelihoods of future generations, but it is also about the communities around the world that have contributed the least to the climate crisis yet are among those suffering from extreme flooding, droughts and storms. We have a historic responsibility to lead by example and support those communities, a principle to which the Liberal Democrats are firmly committed. I thank David Barratt for raising the point about the polluter-pays principle, in what I thought was a fine contribution to the debate.
As a former employee of Christian Aid, which is an international development charity, I will focus my contributions on those global outcomes. First, to give credit where credit is due—and this point was raised by Mark Ruskell—the Scottish Government was the first Government in the global north to explicitly commit dedicated funding to address climate-related loss and damage. At COP28, the Scottish Government awarded £250,000 to Christian Aid to support communities in Ethiopia facing the devastating impacts of climate change. Working with its local partner, Action for Development, Christian Aid supported nearly 38,000 people. That support included cash assistance to meet life-saving needs, such as food, shelter and medicine; grants to support income-generating activities, including fishing; and the restoration of numerous boreholes to improve access to water. Earlier in the debate, Duncan Massey—I do not think that he is listening right now—was questioning what the accountability for aid and support looks like. That is what it looks like.
That all demonstrates Scotland’s commitment to locally led solutions and to helping communities to recover from the impacts of the climate crisis. Paul Sweeney raised the point about locally led solutions in reference to SCIAF, in particular. That is absolutely a commitment that we should be proud of. However, I believe that we have a duty to go further.
The member is making an excellent speech. Does he recognise that this is not a zero-sum game? The charitable projects where we share knowledge and partnerships should not be set against the industrial partnerships that we could develop, with Scottish industry and engineering know-how, to further develop decarbonisation around the world.
Absolutely. That is a fine point. I recall a briefing from Scottish Land & Estates, which referenced some of the great expertise that we have in Scotland on things such as peatland restoration. There is a lot that we have to offer, and that is a point well made.
I recall that the fund for responding to loss and damage was adopted at COP28, when I was working for Christian Aid; it pains me that funding has still not reached the communities that need it. Therefore, I hope that the Scottish Government will redouble its efforts, not only by increasing its own funding for loss and damage but by reaffirming the importance of that international fund, mobilising other subnational Governments to contribute—a point made by Stuart McMillan—and making the case for funding to be dispersed at pace and directly to affected communities.
Looking ahead, I think that COP31 presents an important opportunity, as our Liberal Democrat amendment highlights. Mohamed Adow, who is the director of Power Shift Africa, argues that a key outcome of COP31 must be concrete progress towards mobilising $1.3 trillion a year in climate finance by 2035. That means delivering affordable and accessible climate finance for developing countries so that they can build clean energy systems and pursue economic development without repeating the mistakes of the past. However, the challenge goes deeper than that. It is about more than simply raising more money. It is also about looking at why, as I raised earlier, we need to focus on grants and not loans. I hope that the Government will make that case at COP31.
On the issue of debt, I will briefly reflect—as my time is almost up—on the unique role that the UK can play. Nearly 90 per cent of the debt that is owed by lower-income countries to private lenders is governed by English law. That gives the UK Government a significant lever to end unjust debt cycles and to protect investment in education and healthcare. I welcome the increasingly positive signals coming from the UK Government, but I urge the Scottish Government to engage with UK counterparts and press for new debt legislation that can compel private lenders to cancel or renegotiate unsustainable debts owed by low-income countries.
The world has made plenty of promises on climate action. What we now need is the finance and the political will to turn those promises into reality. We must therefore acknowledge that climate action will succeed only if those developing countries have the resources that they need to play their full part. Let us support them.
16:54
This debate has highlighted an important difference of opinion across the chamber. I will begin by addressing one point directly: I believe that nobody on the Conservative benches disputes that climate change is real; no one disputes that many countries in the global south are experiencing some of its most severe consequences, despite often having contributed least to the emissions that drive it; and no one disputes that there is a moral case for helping those who are affected by climate change around the world. Indeed, it is entirely right that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 requires ministers to recognise the global nature of the challenge and to set out how Scotland will contribute to international efforts to address climate change, including supporting developing countries to adapt and build resilience.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not now. I would like to make progress.
The question before us is not whether climate change exists or whether vulnerable communities deserve support; it is whether the Scottish Government is getting its priorities right. As I said in my opening speech, the impacts of climate change are no longer things that happen elsewhere; they are being felt here in Scotland. We have seen the flooding that communities have experienced over the past few days. At a time when such challenges are becoming more frequent, people are right to expect Parliament to focus on its responsibilities and powers.
Will Finlay Carson take an intervention?
No. I am going to make progress.
The devolution settlement is clear. The Scotland Act 1998 sets out which responsibilities belong to this Parliament and which are reserved to Westminster. It is on that basis that powers are divided and public funding is allocated between the Scottish and UK Governments. That framework has been accepted across the chamber for more than a quarter of a century. International development is one of the responsibilities that are reserved to the UK Government, yet ministers continue to commit increasing sums—
Is Finlay Carson not aware of the fact that we have had ministerial consent since 2005? Is he deliberately ignoring that, or is he choosing not to acknowledge it at all?
I am not ignoring it, but if the member had listened to what I am saying, she would know that I am disputing that that is the position that we should be in.
I repeat that the framework for devolution has been accepted across the chamber for a quarter of a century. Although international development is one of the responsibilities that are reserved to the UK Government, ministers in Scotland are still committing increased funds through the international climate justice fund. I have no doubt—absolutely none whatever—that many worthwhile projects are being supported overseas, but we need to recognise that the challenge that is faced by developing countries does not remove our responsibilities to scrutinise how public money is spent.
Scottish taxpayers already contribute to international aid and development through the UK tax system. Therefore, at a time of intense pressure on devolved budgets, it is legitimate to ask whether additional Scottish Government funding should be directed overseas or focused on the many responsibilities for which the Scottish Parliament is accountable. The question is not about compassion; it is about priorities.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not.
Many people will say that the climate and environmental priorities should look first to seeking better flood protection, greater resilience to extreme weather, accelerated peatland restoration and tree planting, and stronger support for nature recovery, for which the Government’s funding has dropped.
No, it has not.
The cabinet secretary repeats that point, but the rural affairs portfolio has had a decreasing budget over the term for which the SNP Government has been in power. However, if we get it right here and invest in Scotland’s environment and the economy of our communities, the innovation that we can create will, in turn, have a positive effect across the globe.
Our concerns are not theoretical; they are about the everyday realities that face the people who we represent. If the Scottish Government truly wants to advance climate action, there is no shortage of work to do here at home. We need strong support for climate resilience in our communities; greater investment in adaptation; practical support for farmers, land managers and rural businesses, which will play a crucial role in relation to our climate challenges; and public services that are equipped to respond to the increasing challenges that the changing environment poses.
Our amendment recognises the reality of climate change and acknowledges the disproportionate impact that it has had on many countries around the world. It accepts that there is a moral case for helping those who are most affected and recognises the importance of Scotland playing its part in global efforts to tackle climate change.
However, our amendment also reflects a simple principle: when public finances are constrained, the Parliament’s first responsibility must be to the people and communities of Scotland and to the devolved responsibilities for which we are accountable. At a time of tight budgets, every pound that is spent by the Government should be subject to scrutiny and focused on where it can make the greatest difference. That means helping Scottish communities to become more resilient, supporting Scottish businesses to reduce emissions, strengthening public services and investing in practical environmental improvements here at home. With reserved and devolved responsibilities here in Scotland, climate responsibility begins with getting our own house in order.
17:00
The clear majority support from members for the motion is welcome, but this debate has left me feeling that most parties are merely clinging to what little is left of the climate consensus that used to exist. This debate has made it hard to believe that political parties across the Parliament once competed with one other to show the greatest ambition in rising to the challenge. That consensus has been replaced by a profound moral failure.
There is also strong majority support for the concept of climate justice and for seeing that as part of our responsibilities for international development—our responsibility to be a good global citizen. It would be a profoundly regressive step for the Parliament or the Scottish Government to abandon those responsibilities. Let us remember—as the minister said—that we took the first steps in developing a global role for Scotland way back in the early years of devolution, long before the first pro-independence Government. The issue should not be seen as a constitutional dividing line.
There are some people who clearly oppose climate justice as a concept, just as they oppose and reject climate science, and there are some who want to abandon our international responsibilities, just as the UK Government has slashed its development funding. Multiple members, including Clare Haughey, Mark Ruskell and David Green, cited the human impacts of climate change, from east Africa and small island states to Nepal and many other places around the world. We have always known that the impacts of climate change will hit hardest the countries that did the least to cause the crisis. That is before the profound threats that we know are coming to the global food systems that we all rely on.
We need to be clear that the debate is not taking place in the context of the earlier climate consensus that I described. That consensus has gone, because the right and the far right are embracing climate denial, a conspiracy movement that was deliberately created by the fossil fuel industry to hide and distort the science in the full knowledge of the harm that it was doing. Most of the industry no longer feels the need to continue with that propaganda exercise because it knows that its propaganda has taken hold in the muckier parts of politics and the media, and it also knows that, across the centre ground of politics in many countries, far too many politicians are willing to unquestioningly parrot the talking points of the fossil fuel industry—not to deny the science outright nor to promote denial, but to promote delay.
The fossil fuel industry will agree that we must transition, but not now—not yet—and not too quickly. It will use the policy of delay to try to justify business as usual: more fossil fuel extraction and consumption and more delays in taking the actions at home that are necessary to make a low-carbon economy a reality or to make it affordable in people’s lives. It is that retreat from climate ambition in the centre ground that I find the most depressing, not the predictable denial on the right.
What is the context of today’s debate? Just this week, there was an announcement that Scotland’s recycling rates are at a five-year low. There has been the approval of Jackdaw, which will do nothing to cut bills and next to nothing to improve energy security but will increase greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel profits. After spending the past two years reversing the policies that Scotland needs to end our dependence on gas for heating, ministers have today approved a new gas-fired power station at Peterhead, taking us back to the technology of the previous century, burning fossil fuels to produce electricity in a country with abundant renewable resources.
Climate justice begins at home. Increasing the climate justice fund is clearly a good thing and it will support critically important work. However, doing so while pouring more fuel on the fire and accelerating the climate emergency with more fossil fuel extraction and more consumption—even for electricity generation, which has readily available, clean alternatives—is no basis for climate justice.
The Paris agreement—the ambition to keep global warming to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C—should remain our guiding principle, and it is clear that we are now years behind where we should be. Globally, we are all years behind where we should be, largely because of the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda and the lack of will of too many politicians to challenge it. Here, in Scotland, we are years behind where we should be, and we are still not doing what we know we need to do to rapidly decarbonise our economy, our homes, our communities and our transport. Taking that action would do far more to cut fossil fuel imports than new extraction will do, and it would also produce innovation and skills that we could share with developing countries.
The evidence is clear that new fossil fuel production beyond that that is currently approved will leave those Paris agreement goals out of reach. If the UK Government approves the Rosebank oilfield, which would produce 254 million tonnes of COequivalent, it will really not matter a bit that it makes a paper commitment to net zero, because its actions will be no different from those of a climate-denying Government.
A commitment to climate justice means providing climate finance for developing countries, sharing skills and technologies and supporting their resilience—
Will you wind up, please?
—but it must be underpinned by actions at home to stop making the climate crisis worse. Both Governments need to do more to close the gap between net zero rhetoric and the action that is needed to make it a reality.
17:06
In this debate, we have heard a number of speeches on our environmental obligations. I also heard a number of invites to various COP and climate events. I hope that we are going to tax the air miles of politicians who attend. That would be a good revenue stream that might pull us out of the cost of living crisis.
As we bring this debate to a close, I think that we are looking at the subject from the wrong angle. We need to move away from ideology and focus on the practical mechanics of global growth. Having lived in the real world and only recently come into politics, I feel that the dissenting voice is not being heard today. However, hearing that voice is the only way that we can make real, positive change globally.
The framework of so-called climate justice as promoted by the Scottish Government is increasingly being used as a vehicle for top-down regulation and control. It is built on the premise that advanced economies must atone for the past through restrictive targets, economic constraints and Government intervention, including by providing climate finance to developing nations. As my colleague Mr Massey said, some of those countries are actually growing very well and incredibly fast.
Let us be clear that the industrial revolution does not need an apology. It was a great engine that lifted humanity out of poverty, lengthened life expectancy, expanded opportunity and created the technological foundations of the modern world. The prosperity that we enjoy today and the innovations that we depend on did not emerge despite industrialisation; they emerged because of it. If we begin treating our industrial heritage as something to be punished, we end up designing policies that weaken our economy while achieving very little for the environment.
I say to the member that she is missing the point. This is not about an apology for the industrial revolution, as she highlighted. However, if we focus on the industrial revolution and recognise that we have benefited from it, we must also recognise that the climate-vulnerable countries that we are debating—and which we are trying to supply climate finance to—are subject to storms, floods and so on not because of something that is their fault, but because of the industrial revolution here.
I thank the member for their point. I feel that prosperity should be achieved globally to help to drive forward innovation and find ways of tackling issues that we have.
I feel as though we have stagnated and I do not see a change over the past decades. We have not moved forward—we should be prosperous and innovative in order to do that.
When production is driven out of Scotland, it does not simply disappear; it moves elsewhere, often to countries with higher carbon intensity and lower environmental standards. Factories close and jobs disappear; investment leaves Scotland, but global emissions remain. That is not climate justice; it is a self-inflicted economic injury that harms our communities while driving little meaningful benefit for the planet.
Would Angela Ross acknowledge that that is one of the outcomes of the free market economy in which we currently live? Businesses will leave Scotland and go elsewhere because it is cheaper to work elsewhere. Sadly, there are emissions impacts as a consequence.
I do not think that we look at the issues enough from a global perspective. We have a problem because global emissions remain. We might have reduced emissions in Scotland, but we are not tackling them globally. There is still a high level of carbon in the atmosphere and I think that the parts per million are increasing. I feel as though we are not tackling the issues in the correct, meaningful way; we need to drive the economy everywhere and we need to keep jobs everywhere.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will continue, because my time is running short.
I remind the member that it is entirely up to you whether you take interventions, but they do not count against the six minutes that you had to begin with, so that your speech can have a middle and an end.
Businesses do not need a sprawling state apparatus to tell them that reducing waste, improving efficiency and making better use of resources are worthwhile goals. I have run a business, and people know and understand that efficiencies strengthen the balance sheet and the communities that they serve. We need to drive that more organically instead of through top-down Government regulation. Environmental responsibility should not be about state-directed penance; it should be about practical improvement, technological process and progress, as well as commonsense stewardship.
True international co-operation also means recognising that developing nations have an absolute right to grow their economies in order to lift citizens out of poverty. Leaders across the developing world have consistently made the same point: they want the freedom to determine their own path to prosperity, and they want control over their own resources, industries and economic future. Attempting to impose a restrictive west-designed model from the outset is not only ineffective but risks becoming deeply patronising. It ignores the sovereignty of nations that are fully capable of making their own choices.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will continue.
The cogs of progress turn one country at a time. Our responsibility is not to dictate the future of others but to ensure that Scotland remains productive, competitive and prosperous. The greatest contribution that Scotland can make to the world is not to become a model of managed decline; it is to become a model of innovation, investment and growth, which means creating abundant, affordable and secure energy. When nations have access to reliable and inexpensive power, living standards rise, businesses expand, manufacturing remains competitive and investors have confidence to build for the future.
Economic growth is not something to apologise for: it creates the resources that are needed to develop breakthrough technologies; it funds research, drives engineering excellence and creates the commercial incentives that bring innovation into everyday lives. Only from a position of strength can Scotland develop and export the technologies that can help to solve global challenges. We have done it before. From a position of prosperity, we can create greener, more efficient and more reliable alternatives that other countries will choose because they are better and cost less. Ultimately, that is how lasting progress is achieved.
The member should wind up, please.
It is not achieved through restrictions, symbolic gestures or weakening our economy in pursuit of targets. That will make little difference on the global scale. We must solve the challenge through enterprise, ingenuity and economic strength. That is how Scotland will help itself and the world.
17:14
International climate justice is something that we, as politicians, must all take seriously. I am pleased that we are here today to—I hope—reaffirm our commitment to this important issue.
Climate change is having devastating impacts around the world. In just the past few days, we have seen the impact of severe weather here. Today, I have received emails from one constituent in South Uist who is concerned about the increasing erosion of the machair coast and another in Baleshare, where the causeway connecting the island to North Uist has been under water for prolonged periods in the past few days, preventing access. Communities such as those, which are often forgotten about, need our support.
However, we must acknowledge that countries that have contributed little to global emissions in the past are also bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change. Whether in response to the devastating floods in Nepal or to soaring temperatures and crop failures around the world, we have a moral duty to act on our emissions and to support climate adaption here and around the world.
I will reflect on some of the contributions that we have heard in the debate. In her opening speech, the cabinet secretary set out the context well. We are approaching COP31 in Turkey, with those important international discussions on the future. We are heading into what is predicted to be one of the strongest El Niño events ever, which will lead to severe weather around the globe. The cabinet secretary also highlighted the injustice that the global south is facing: communities that did not contribute to emissions are experiencing the worst effects of them. It is also important to say that there are risks associated with climate change to defence and security around the world. Getting this right is about securing a peaceful future for us all.
It was good to hear about the work that Scottish Government funding is delivering around the world. However, as my colleague Paul Sweeney highlighted—indeed, this is the substance of the Labour amendment—we need more transparency around how climate funding is being spent in the world. That is not meant as a criticism but as a suggested way to find out how we can do this better and make the most of the money that is being spent.
Paul Sweeney also highlighted that we will miss the global targets and overshoot the agreed warming limit of 1.5°C, with all the consequences that will come from that. That should be in the back of all our minds today.
I thought that Duncan Massey’s contribution missed the point, which is that we have a moral obligation to act. As others around the chamber have identified, investment in this will serve us well in protecting our future security as well as supporting other countries around the world.
Mark Ruskell made an important point about the impact on women and girls, and he described a range of international events that are taking place to highlight the scale of the problem. Finlay Carson was quite correct to raise the impact of climate change at home, including from the severe weather events that we have seen. I associate myself with his condolences to the family of Richard Baines of his constituency, who passed away at the weekend.
Sanne Dijkstra-Downie talked about the sharing of costs across the world and how important that is in recognising the impact that the crisis abroad is having on us here. Stuart McMillan made a point linked to that about international solidarity and the connection between the subject that we are debating today and the human rights of people around the world. That should not be lost on us. Clare Haughey spoke about the long-standing connections between Scotland and Malawi, as did Patrick Harvie when he highlighted the commitment that the Parliament has had since 2005 to supporting countries around the world, starting with the initial project with Malawi. I cannot forget the excellent point that Alex Kerr made about the beauty of the Western Isles.
Last month, I attended Outer Hebrides climate week in my constituency in Stornoway. Its theme was resilience and how our communities can adapt to the challenges of climate change. At that conference, the attendees were not talking about climate change as some abstract concept but as something that affects our lives on a day-to-day basis. Preparing communities for adaptation is crucial in dealing with events, and how we share learning in this country to support the international community is also vital.
However, that is not where our responsibility ends. We need to be much better at thinking holistically about how we approach climate change. Our outlook cannot simply stop at our own shores. We need to consider how the decisions that we make here impact on other countries, other people and global emissions. When we invest in renewables, which we must do to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we should consider the supply chain involved and all the other pieces that make up the complex puzzle that will allow us to reach net zero.
On fossil fuels, as we move through that transition, it does not make sense to stop extracting gas here if the alternative is to import gas with a higher carbon footprint from abroad. The same can be said for food products or heavy industry.
The point that Donald MacKinnon is making about domestic production of gas might be valid if two things were true. It might be valid, first, if we were doing everything that we could to reduce gas consumption—and we are not doing that—and, secondly, if there were an international agreement that, for every extra unit of gas that we extract in the North Sea, a unit stays on the ground somewhere else. No such agreement exists. Therefore, extracting more fossil fuel simply means more global supply and more global emissions.
I agree with Patrick Harvie that we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and moving away from a need for gas. I absolutely think that that has to be the case. However, in the interim period, the fact remains that we need gas for baseload—and, if we are going to use gas, that gas should come from the North Sea.
Offshoring our emissions and shifting the problem abroad serves nobody well. That is exactly why the UK Government is committed to introducing the carbon border adjustment mechanism, creating a level playing field between domestic and international industries. We need to be pragmatic about decisions that are made about industry at home, and consider how those have ramifications right around the globe and for generations to come.
Today, we can restate our commitment to climate justice—not as something that we should do, but as something that we must do.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Previous
First Minister’s Question Time