Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Official Report 1191KB pdf

---

Scottish Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2016

The next item of business is a statement by Roseanna Cunningham on Scottish greenhouse gas emissions 2016. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement.

14:20  

I am pleased to update the Parliament on the progress that Scotland is making in tackling climate change.

Scotland’s transition to a low-carbon economy is well under way. In 1990, Scotland emitted 76 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Statistics that were published today show that, in 2016, that number had almost halved to 39 million tonnes, which is a reduction of 49 per cent. Scotland continues to outperform the United Kingdom as a whole in delivering long-term emissions reductions. Among western European countries in the European Union 15, only Sweden has done better.

That achievement is a national endeavour that has required effort across the whole of Scotland, in every community, home and organisation. Today’s statistics are testament to everyone who has made changes to their personal or business behaviour. Those changes are making a real difference.

On how we are progressing against Scotland’s current statutory targets under this Parliament’s Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, the statistics that were published this morning show that emissions are down 45 per cent. The targets are set on an adjusted-emissions basis that reflects the operation of the EU emissions trading scheme in Scotland. On that basis, Scotland has not only met the 2016 annual target but is again exceeding the level of the current 2020 interim target of a 42 per cent reduction. Given that we are making sustained progress in meeting our existing statutory targets, and given that those targets lie at the most ambitious end of current international pledges to 2030, I am sure that members will agree with me that that is good news.

However, there is always scope for improvement in reporting against climate targets. For that reason, the newly introduced Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill proposes that all future targets will be set and reported against using actual emissions rather than the emissions adjusted for the EU emissions trading scheme.

A further issue, which members will recall from previous years, is the technical revisions to the data that happen as measurement science evolves. Decisions about those data revisions are made at a UK level, in line with United Nations guidelines. As has become customary, the statistics that were published today contain substantial revisions to the past data, mainly in the forestry sector. The revisions have worked in our favour—in effect, making targets easier to meet than was the case last year. However, in most previous years, revisions have gone the other way and have made the targets harder to meet. Overall, the effect of revisions to date has made the targets harder to meet. That illustrates how important it is that target outcomes reflect on-the-ground actions and are not determined purely by technical changes.

The new bill will implement recommendations from the Committee on Climate Change on that issue. The measurement methods that are used for reporting target outcomes will be frozen from the time when the target levels were last reviewed. That will help to ensure that technical changes alone do not determine whether targets are met or, indeed, missed. Those shifts will improve transparency and enable the Government to be held to account. I know that the Parliament is always keen to hold the Government to account.

The statistics that were published this morning demonstrate that Scotland is halfway through its low-carbon transition. We must build on that momentum and on the global consensus that is enshrined in the UN Paris agreement, and we must commit to doing even more. Through the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, we are not only providing solutions to our country’s needs and interests but putting Scotland in the global vanguard. We are one of the first countries to set new statutory targets that are based on independent expert advice, in line with the global aims of the Paris agreement. The bill will mean that Scotland has the world’s most ambitious statutory 2050 target based on domestic actions alone. The interim targets for 2020, 2030 and 2040 will be the most ambitious statutory targets for those years anywhere in the world. Scotland will also remain the only country to have statutory annual targets, allowing the Parliament to hold the Government to account each and every year, which will mean that there can be no delay in increasing action.

There is no doubt that the newly published statistics demonstrate substantive progress. However, they also show where we need to be mindful of consequences. Since 1990, energy supply emissions have come down by 69 per cent, and waste and industry have also seen substantial reductions. In particular, the closure of the Longannet power station, in March 2016, has had a substantial impact. The move to low-carbon energy is the right one, but we must reflect on those who were employed at Longannet. Its situation shows very clearly that the low-carbon transition involves—and will continue to involve—very real impacts on people, jobs and local economies. There will be many co-benefits, but there will also be genuine challenges. That is why we need to take a balanced approach to meeting our climate, social and economic priorities.

The transition to a low-carbon economy requires transformative change, but such change must be fair and inclusive. It is intended that the just transition commission, which this Government will bring into being, will explore those admittedly difficult issues and advise on continuing the transition in a way that promotes cohesion and equality. The form that the commission will take and its membership are currently being considered and will be announced later this year.

The emissions statistics also show where we need to make more progress in transport and buildings. This Government is already focused on tackling such issues. “Switched on Scotland: A Road Map to the Widespread Adoption of Plug-in Vehicles” outlines plans to increase the take-up of electric vehicles, and Scotland is taking the lead in promoting the use of ultra-low-emission vehicles and phasing out the need for new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2032. “Energy Efficient Scotland: Route Map”, which was published last month, sets out our vision that, by 2040, all buildings in Scotland will be warmer, greener and more efficient.

Let me be absolutely clear: this Government wants to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible. Crucially, I want to get there through responsible, credible legislation, plans and action. We need to maintain Scotland’s momentum because, without a doubt, the actions that will be needed to reduce emissions in the future will be much tougher than those of previous decades. I do not want Scotland just to reduce its emissions but to do so in a way that supports sustainable and inclusive growth and a fairer society. The transformation to a low-carbon economy must benefit all; otherwise, it could commit Scotland to approaches that will reduce food production, limit connectivity and jeopardise jobs. That sort of dislocation would be neither responsible nor sustainable in the long term.

I also believe that Scotland’s transformation should be built on the strengths of the Parliament’s Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Setting a target beyond 90 per cent now would mean reducing the integrity of our approach—for example, by purchasing international credits, removing sectors from our targets or relying on future technology that cannot yet be set out for scrutiny. For that reason, the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill supports our commitment to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible but does not set a fixed date for that. The bill will ensure that there is a requirement to have regard to the regular independent, expert advice that will be provided on target levels, including the specific issue of a net zero date. As soon as the evidence indicates that there is a credible pathway to net zero emissions, we will use the mechanisms in the bill to set the earliest achievable date in law.

The moral, scientific and economic case for global action on climate change is clear, and Scotland has risen to the challenge. The statistics that were published this morning clearly demonstrate the strong progress that Scotland continues to make in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The actions that have been taken to date are working, and the commitments that have already been made and those that are in development will help us to make further and faster progress. The proposals in our Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill will help Scotland to remain a world leader in tackling climate change and will enable Scotland to become a fair and just low-carbon society.

Thank you very much. I will allow just under 20 minutes for questions.

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing advance notice of her statement, and I refer to my interests in renewable energy and agriculture, as set out in my entry in the register of members’ interests.

As a party that is committed to protecting the environment and tackling climate change, the Scottish Conservatives welcome today’s announcement and the progress that has been made on climate change emissions. We welcome, in particular, the announcement of the setting up of the just transition commission.

However, the publication of the statistics provides us with an opportunity to discuss broader issues surrounding climate change. It is important to acknowledge that, in many quarters, it is felt that the climate change plan and the recently published bill are not robust or ambitious enough.

Similarly, we note that, although significant progress has been made in bringing down emissions in energy production, there has been little movement in transport and residential emissions—as, to be fair, the cabinet secretary recognised. Conservative members agree with Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, which says that we must use the opportunity

“to discuss what more we can do to tackle climate change”.

What more can be done to reduce emissions in areas such as transport, which is the highest-emitting sector? Will the Government take the opportunity to strengthen the bill so that we can meet our climate change obligations?

I outlined in the statement why I believe that what we are proposing in the bill is ambitious. I acknowledged that there are sectors of the economy that have not made the same strong progress as other sectors, but none of that will come as an enormous surprise to anybody.

What more can be done? A great deal more is already being done. I remind members that we are talking about the statistics for 2016. Since 2016, there have been considerable changes in transport policy and huge commitments have been made. For example, a lot of work is currently being done on low-emission zones. That area of interest is not in my portfolio, but the Transport (Scotland) Bill was published yesterday and I expect that, during its passage through Parliament, there will be vigorous debate about some of the things that we are talking about today. The Scottish Government has already made significant commitments on transport that will have an effect on the transport emissions statistics for 2017, 2018 and 2019. There is a tendency to forget that there is a two-year time lag in the statistics.

The same is true in relation to buildings. The Government has made a very big commitment on energy efficiency over a number of years, which will also be reflected in the future statistics. A lot of work is being done to increase the ambition, which is likely to have a significant effect on emissions reductions in the sectors in which we think there is still a lot to do.

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing us with prior sight of her statement, and I welcome the fact that we have met this year’s targets. Although it is a complex picture, that gives us confidence about what it is possible for Scotland to achieve when climate policy is driven by ambitious long-term and interim targets.

Will the cabinet secretary look again at the claim that the bill’s targets are the world’s most ambitious as they stand at the moment? Much of the emissions reduction is to come from the deployment of renewables in the electricity sector. What lessons does the cabinet secretary think we can learn from that? How can we apply that approach to sectors in which emissions are not yet falling enough, such as transport, residential buildings and agriculture? The latter was not highlighted in the statement as an area of concern but, in our view, the Scottish Government could consider a more robust policy to support farmers as well as mandatory action. Will the cabinet secretary commit to having dialogue with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity to address that issue?

I will not repeat what I have just said about transport and buildings, as I do not see much purpose in that.

I am glad that the member has raised the issue of agriculture, because one of the difficulties is that most of the emissions in agriculture are not carbon emissions but residual emissions of methane and things like that. Tackling those emissions is a very different matter from the decarbonising that takes place in, for example, the energy sector, which the member used as an example. It is probably fair to say that we will decarbonise energy much sooner than we will be able to reduce emissions from agriculture, because the total reduction of emissions in agriculture would mean, in effect, no food production, and we cannot be in a position where that is what we are talking about.

The member can be assured that I frequently have vigorous conversations with my colleague in the rural economy portfolio. I understand and accept the challenges that exist in the agriculture sector. However, if we set targets in the future that are far too high and cannot be achieved other than by reducing food production in Scotland, that will not assist us either nationally or, indeed, globally.

Can the cabinet secretary outline her view on trade agreements after Brexit and the effect that they might have on our approach to climate change, especially with regard to the relatively recent departure of the United States from the Paris agreement, which suggests that the US Administration has no interest in or understanding of the effects of climate change?

I could say that that question has been asked and answered by Stewart Stevenson. However, it is the case that, post-Brexit, the UK might arrive at trade agreements that would not help us to reduce emissions. We do not know what is going to happen and we are not certain what any trade agreements will hold. However, they could end up, for the reason to which Stewart Stevenson alluded, leading to increased emissions from the goods and services that we import. The truth is that membership of the European Union and its single market provides Scotland with access to climate friendly trade with our neighbouring countries, which I think everybody would accept is the most sensible way to proceed.

Given the closure of Longannet, has the Scottish Government considered what impact the transition to a decarbonised energy supply might have in the event of a black start event?

We are talking about the just transition commission because we want to make sure that what we are doing in all sectors, including the energy sector, manages things for our population socially and economically as well as in terms of emissions reductions and targets. What the member alluded to is the kind of thing that is almost impossible to factor into what the future might hold and why we have to be incredibly careful about how we plan. I think that we have done incredibly well in terms of the energy sector, but the closure of Longannet is a sort of microcosm of some of the things that could happen or go wrong in the future. I am not saying that the closure was wrong, but the concern is jobs and the local economy, which is an important aspect of how we plan for the future. In that regard, we all wish that we could have 20:20 foresight, but we do not.

These figures are the first to show the impact of the closure of Longannet, as has been said. It has been good for our climate but the only just transition support that the Scottish Government offered was at the moment of crisis for those workers and those communities.

Moving to lower emissions requires us to plan and to support workers in the just transition stages, as the cabinet secretary has said. Does that not mean that we need a just transition commission that is long term and has a powerful legal basis in the climate change bill, and that we also need an industrial strategy that takes us to a low-carbon future, in consultation with affected workers and communities across Scotland?

When it is set up, the just transition commission will provide the kind of conversation that the member undoubtedly thinks is absolutely necessary, as I do. Longannet could be seen as a case study of what might be required.

The member is asking that we put the just transition commission into statute but I do not think that he is taking on board how long it would take to get the commission up and running if we did that. I hope to be making an announcement later this year, which would be considerably sooner than it would take to set up any statutory just transition commission that he might envisage. I would prefer to get us moving sooner rather than later.

As we have heard, today’s statistics show that Scotland is outperforming many other countries and is providing an example of leadership. How important has international co-operation been and how important will it be in tackling climate change?

International co-operation on climate change is absolutely vital and is happening through the UN Paris agreement. We are proud to be one of the first countries to enshrine in domestic legislation the increased commitment required by the Paris agreement.

Following the introduction of the new climate change bill, members might wish to know that we have received a letter from Laurent Fabius, president of the Paris climate conference, welcoming the bill as a

“very positive step”

and a

“concrete application of the Paris Agreement”.

International co-operation is not just about the actual moves towards climate change mitigation. It is also about climate justice. This Government has put a great deal of money into our climate justice fund, helping to mitigate and tackle the effects of climate change in the poorest, most vulnerable countries in the world.

Every country needs to decarbonise its own economy and society in a way that works for it. Many of the changes to technology and infrastructure that will be necessary to achieve net zero emissions can only be developed with multinational co-operation. The Scottish Government collaborates with other high-ambition states and regions through the under2 coalition, and the First Minister has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Governor of California as a fellow member of the coalition.

All of that international action is incredibly important, but I am particularly pleased to see the new climate change bill being given that kudos and that credibility by somebody as important as Laurent Fabius.

The cabinet secretary has spoken a lot over the past 18 months about the need to keep pace with the European Union. If the EU sets a net zero target, as is being discussed by the European Parliament and the European Commission at the moment, would the Scottish Government use that as a reason to set a net zero target for Scotland?

I think that Mark Ruskell is in that category of people who want me to have 20:20 foresight. There is a lot of discussion around net zero and I understand why people want to have these conversations. However, a closer look at what is proposed in various jurisdictions suggests a widely varying approach to how that net zero target might be reached. In many cases, it is not a legislative approach, and in others, the approach is to exclude all sorts of things that we include in our legislation.

I do not know what the EU may or may not come out with in the future. I cannot be certain. I will, however, follow its discussions very carefully indeed, as I would expect all Governments to do, and I would hope that the EU is also looking at the conversations that we are having.

I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement and I welcome the confirmation that we have achieved the target. I also thank her for her recognition of the significant amount of work that still needs to be done in the areas of building and transport.

In response to Donald Cameron, the cabinet secretary pointed to the lag effect. Since the figures were produced, it is fair to say that the Government has proposed tax cuts for airlines and supported the third runway at Heathrow. Why should aviation get a free pass? What message does that send to those in other sectors who are working hard to make emissions savings and achieve the targets that she has set out?

Aviation sits in the transport sector, where I expect and hope that technological changes will make emissions reductions considerably more manageable. It is important to keep aviation emissions in perspective. In the new 2016 statistics, aviation accounts for less than 5 per cent of total Scottish emissions.

There is a challenge in aviation, but what I said about growing the economy and about impacts must be taken on board. If there was an aviation challenge, it would be important for people to consider how many fewer flights we wanted to come into and out of Scotland and to take place internally. Such questions would have to be addressed.

I do not say that to dismiss what Liam McArthur said; I know that he asked a genuine question. However, a genuine conversation is needed about Scotland’s wider economy and connectivity, in addition to the emissions reduction aspect.

Technical emissions reductions can be achieved, but that excludes the economic and social consequences of those reductions. We need to think carefully about how that is all managed.

The cabinet secretary is well aware that some non-governmental organisations and other bodies have called on the Scottish Government to set a net zero target in law now, as Sweden has done. I noted her comments about having a credible pathway to such a target but, if Scotland was minded to adopt the legislative approach that Sweden has taken, what would be the impact on the Scottish Government’s budget and on our economy?

The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 set out a distinctive Scottish approach to the low-carbon transition, which included a strong focus on fair and just action to reduce emissions and statutory annual targets to ensure that the Government was held to account every year on the way to 2050. Scotland is the only country in the world to take that approach, which is working—we continue to outperform the UK as a whole in delivering emissions reductions and to rank highly internationally.

Of course we could adopt Sweden’s legislative approach and put a date in the bill, but that would mean removing our annual targets, which Sweden does not have; perhaps substantially reducing the ambition and coverage of our interim targets; and allowing for up to 15 per cent of the final target to be met through international credits. The financial impact would be about £15 billion in the period until 2050, and that money would need to be found from other areas of the Scottish Government’s budget.

One approach to targets is not better than the other, and I applaud Sweden’s ambition. However, the Government’s view is that the distinctive features of the 2009 act should be retained and strengthened.

I am conscious that we have four more questioners and not a lot of time, so we might not get them all in.

The cabinet secretary said that

“all future targets will be set and reported using actual emissions”

rather than statistics that are adjusted for the EU emissions trading scheme. Is that change a result of the UK’s likely withdrawal from the EU ETS?

Not directly. We want to make the change because it is the right thing to do for transparency and accountability; it in no way changes our support for participation in the EU ETS. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, emissions trading is devolved. We hope to be fully involved in decision making about the EU ETS, but I regret that, despite repeated efforts to get responses from the UK Government, we have had no formal discussion about the scheme. The shift to actual emissions accounting under the bill is only about improving transparency in reporting and is not linked to what might happen to the EU ETS.

What will be the effect on jobs, traditional industries and, therefore, local economies, bearing in mind the fact that some organisations have portrayed the target of 90 per cent reduction by 2050 as not being ambitious?

A 90 per cent reduction target for all greenhouse gases means net zero emissions of carbon dioxide in Scotland by 2050. I think that some people have overlooked that. It is interesting that one of the things on which New Zealand, which has a headline indication that it wants to go to net zero, is consulting on going to net zero on carbon only. There is a bit of a misunderstanding around the discussion and it is important for us to say that.

According to the Committee on Climate Change, achieving a 90 per cent reduction in all greenhouse gases will require the new total decarbonisation by 2050 of energy supply, ground transport and buildings. That is what we anticipate. It means transformational change and challenging actions.

However, by far the largest source of emissions in the CCC’s scenario for 2050 will be agriculture, which, as I said, is not the same as other sectors. That needs to be recognised. We cannot produce food without emitting greenhouse gases such as methane, so setting a net zero target for all greenhouse gases before the evidence exists to support it could mean reducing the amount of food produced in Scotland without reducing greenhouse gases at the global level.

Overall, the statement shows a positive trend in reducing emissions. My Conservative colleagues and I welcome that. However, the housing emissions continue to rise. Does that not show that there is more work for us to do on insulating our homes, particularly in rural areas? The route map for an energy-efficient Scotland, which was published last month, did not suggest anything to address the unique rural housing problems. Will the Government heed the Parliament’s call for an energy performance certificate target and increased capital investment in home and energy efficiency?

This is not my portfolio, but the route map for an energy-efficient Scotland, which was published on 2 May, sets out our vision for all buildings in Scotland. We propose that, by 2040, all Scotland’s homes be improved so that they achieve at least an energy performance rating of band C where technically feasible and cost effective

The cabinet secretary may be aware that there are effective solutions and efficient measures for reducing wasteful and harmful emissions from cattle, sheep and slurry. Such solutions are available in the form of yeast and bacteria-based products. What plans does she have to enlist the expertise of farm industry specialists to support further agricultural emissions reduction and continue our progress towards a low-carbon economy?

We are addressing that through the agricultural chapter of the climate change plan and specifically policy outcome 4. There are numerous options on the market and, earlier this year, ClimateXChange published a report commissioned by the Scottish Government and produced by Ricardo Energy & Environment on reduced emissions from the use and storage of manure and slurry, which is on point with what the member is asking about. The report considers the options that are available to Scottish farmers and will help to inform discussions. If she was not already aware of it, I commend it to her.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I omitted to draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to a small shareholding in a wind farm.

Thank you, Mr Stevenson. You have now corrected that.

That concludes the statement on greenhouse gas emissions.