Chamber and committees

The UK Government has updated its planning policy, and there is a clear strategic approach to where data centres are sited, which is what members are calling for in Scotland. On the question around environmental impact assessments, at the moment, it is not mandatory for local authorities to carry out such assessments. Will the Scottish Government consider changing that to ensure that environmental impact assessments are part of the process?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My apologies. I had difficulty connecting. I would have voted yes.

We need to be clear that climate change is an emergency that affects communities across the world and increasingly here in Scotland. We are seeing more extreme weather events, increased flooding, risks to biodiversity, pressures on food production, and growing risks to public health and infrastructure. Climate change does not stop just because some people do not believe in it. The scientific evidence is clear, the need for action is urgent and the responsibility of Government to deliver is undeniable.

Members in successive sessions of the Scottish Parliament have recognised that reality and, although delivery has sometimes fallen short, the need to act has largely been accepted. In returning to the environment brief after around 10 years, I am struck by the extent to which the political consensus on climate action appears to be weakening. That should concern us all. The challenge cannot be whether we agree on the destination; it must be whether we are making enough progress to get there. If Governments repeatedly set ambitious targets but fail to demonstrate progress, people inevitably begin to question whether change is really happening. We cannot allow frustration with delivery to become an argument against action.

We agree with maintaining livestock numbers—although the numbers have come down because of market forces—but the funding framework must support the transformation that we need in farming. If we look at how things have been set up in England and Wales, we see that the money that is distributed to farmers is more clearly linked to the transformation that we need in farming practices.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I am happy to confirm that the amendment refers to carbon budgeting and the changes that we have made to the five-year targets.

I do not agree with that analysis, which does not recognise the reality that farmers are dealing with. When I met NFU Scotland this week, it called for clarity on the money that the Scottish Government will provide.

I agree with that to an extent, but Government has the levers and is there to provide leadership and the drive to make things happen. As I have made clear, collectively across the Parliament, we have agreed that we need to make progress on the targets, which are also legally binding by an agreement made here, and the committees have an important role to play. However, ultimately, the Government has to show leadership on the issue.

Scotland does not have a shortage of climate targets; we have a shortage of evidence that we are moving quickly enough to meet them. There remains a persistent gap between the commitments that have been made and the progress that has been delivered. Devolved policy areas are where many of the emissions reductions that we need must come from, whether they be in transport, low-carbon heat in our homes, or nature restoration. Those are all areas in which we need faster progress.

The recent emissions statement demonstrated the reality. Emissions reductions have slowed, our carbon footprint is moving in the wrong direction and, unless we increase the pace of change, we will struggle to meet future targets. The figures matter because, every year that progress slows, the scale of the challenge becomes even greater. Delaying action today simply means steeper and more difficult changes tomorrow.

The publication of the draft climate action plan at the end of last year was a missed opportunity for the Scottish Government, as it failed to provide the necessary focus on delivery. Stakeholders were looking for confidence that Scotland has a credible pathway to meeting its carbon budgets. The concern was not about ambition; it was about whether the measures that were identified were sufficient, detailed enough and, above all, capable of being implemented.

The cabinet secretary has described the plan as a road map, but a road map must show not only the destination but how we intend to get there. Scotland needs a clearer pathway towards meeting its carbon budgets, and the Parliament needs better tools to monitor progress along the way.

We have seen positive changes, including having greater scrutiny and a greater focus on carbon budgets, but there remain significant gaps in how progress will be measured and monitored. I am keen to hear more from the cabinet secretary about the priority actions that have been taken forward, how progress will be reported to the Parliament and how the cross-Government group referenced in the emissions statement will help to deliver change. She referred to some of that in her opening remarks, but I look forward to hearing more detail. Scrutiny is not an obstacle to climate action; it is essential to it.

We recognise that responsibility for taking action on climate change is shared across individuals, communities, private companies, the public sector and others, as well as the Government. However, as I said earlier, the Government holds the levers of power. For local authorities, households and communities to help drive the transition, they need proper support to do so. For many families, climate policy is not about having an abstract discussion about emissions; it concerns whether they can afford to heat their homes, whether their home is energy efficient and whether they can reduce their energy bills. People want warmer homes, lower bills and cleaner energy, but too many households still face barriers when it comes to improving energy efficiency or installing low-carbon technologies. Improving energy efficiency should be one of the most effective ways to reduce emissions, tackle fuel poverty and lower household bills, yet progress on retrofitting Scotland’s housing stock remains too slow and too many households are still waiting for practical support. We also need to explore how technologies such as solar power, battery storage and heat pumps can work together to decarbonise homes while helping families to manage energy costs.

Domestic transport, which remains our largest source of emissions, is a clear example of the gap between ambition and delivery. Last year, the Scottish Government scrapped its own target to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030, because it had failed to put in place the policies necessary to achieve that. Although there has been expansion and investment in electric vehicle infrastructure, it seems that we increasingly rely on the switch from petrol and diesel to EVs, instead of delivering a wider transformation of our transport system.

I was going to say something about tree planting. The cabinet secretary’s announcement on climate forests is welcome, but we could do more in that area.

We know that the transition to net zero presents huge opportunities for Scotland, and we have the natural resources and ability to deliver that transformation. Alongside opportunity, we need leadership and delivery, with the Government providing clear and credible plans for implementation. Ambition alone will not reduce emissions. Targets alone will not restore nature. We need faster progress on decarbonising transport, improving the energy efficiency of our homes, supporting communities and businesses through the transition and restoring our natural environment.

I move amendment S7M-00434.2, to insert at end:

“; recognises that, in order to meet the 2030 targets and beyond, the pace of change has to accelerate, acknowledging that, if pace continues at the current rate, targets will be missed; calls on the Scottish Government to publish detailed plans on how it will meet interim targets, and further calls on the Scottish Government to move at pace to bring forward retrofitting and other measures to tackle fuel poverty and help Scotland reach its climate targets.”

16:03

I have made it clear that farming and agriculture are important sectors, as the highest emissions in Scotland come from agriculture, transport, housing and buildings, but the Government does not seem to be setting out how it could support the agriculture sector to make the shift. The minister talked about supporting the sector, but he did not talk about the subject of the debate, which is how we should deal with such emissions.

As I said, we would not reduce livestock numbers—although numbers are already coming down because of market forces—but what should we do? We need to consider the funding network and ensure that we work with farmers. We should use the potential that we have to encourage and incentivise low-carbon farming and greening practices through the payments system. The minister seems to be quite excited by the fact that I am saying that, as though it is not something that the Government supports, but my understanding is that the Government does support reducing emissions in the agriculture sector, and I would like a clearer idea of how it plans to do that.

Scotland’s natural environment is one of its greatest assets, but biodiversity continues to decline and many species and habitats remain under pressure. Nature restoration is a key part of our response to climate change. Healthy ecosystems help to store carbon, improve resilience to extreme weather and support sustainable economic activity. However, there are questions about whether our ambition is translating into projects on the ground. Communities, land managers and environmental organisations need certainty on support and investment, alongside clear targets for nature restoration.

The same applies to the marine environment. Our seas support biodiversity, sustain coastal communities and have an important role in carbon storage. However, protecting marine ecosystems requires effective management, robust monitoring and meaningful engagement with those whose livelihoods depend on our seas.

Deputy Presiding Officer, given that I have accepted a number of interventions, am I able to continue?