Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the previous session of the Parliament, four parliamentary committees raised serious concerns that the climate change plan was not fit for purpose, so it was good to hear the CCC finally reflect many of those concerns in its report.

Undoubtedly, the new climate change plan must do better, so will the cabinet secretary accept that we urgently need to drive down the growth in aviation mileage and that no options should be off the table to do that?

I have a point of clarification. I am interested in the provision that allows, in effect, a free allocation under the emissions trading scheme if heat is going to another source so that, instead of heat being wasted, it is taken out of the industrial process and used somewhere else. Are there particular standards for that? Does the heat have to go to housing or to other industrial processes? Are there any criteria around that? I do not have any further comments on the SI beyond seeking that clarification, which it would be useful to receive in some form.

It is very welcome to see the on-going alignment with EU law. Stakeholder engagement was one of the issues raised in the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. Obviously, stakeholder engagement in Europe is extremely detailed throughout the policy development process and the development of regulations. Now that we are out of that system, minister, how have we attempted to replicate that stakeholder engagement at an appropriate level with the adoption of the regulations? Indeed, how are you involving stakeholders with regard to what might come forward through the directive over time that we might wish to align to? We have lost that architecture of really in-depth stakeholder engagement.

After COP27, the odds are now, sadly, stacked against keeping the world to 1.5° of heating. The UN secretary general described the latest IPCC report as an “atlas of human suffering”. This is what we now face; it is completely inevitable.

However, the threat should galvanise us, because, even if 1.5° is now dead, we must redouble our efforts to keep hope and progress alive. It will not be enough to have short-term technical decarbonisation plans that allow business as usual to simply continue. We need a revolution in our thinking, and we must look forward to future generations with every action that we take, because the footprints that we leave today will last for generations to come.

It is time to join the dots and see the connections in what is already happening to our world. Europe is currently heating at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, while the Arctic is heating three times faster. Every fraction of a degree of Arctic temperature increase has resulted in a more erratic polar jet stream, bringing heat waves, droughts, forest fires and excess deaths across Europe.

A melting Arctic permafrost could mean game over for this planet. If the tipping point is reached, 25 to 40 per cent of global carbon budgets could be blown by permafrost emissions alone. We are one people living on one planet with a shared history and a shared future, and what happens in the Arctic writes the future of a community in Bangladesh.

That is why it was so important that COP27 finally took a critical step forward towards climate reparations for nations that are at the front line of the crisis, with a dedicated fund established for loss and damage. However, as the conference came to a close, we saw the progress that was made in Glasgow start to wither away without delivering the necessary commitments on a phase-out from all fossil fuels.

Despite Alok Sharma’s leadership at COP26 and his calls for a phasing out of all fossil fuels, the Westminster Government has largely continued with business as usual. Despite continuing calls from the International Energy Agency for there to be

“no new investments in oil, gas and coal”,

we have seen a disastrous expansion of oil and gas licences in the North Sea and may even see permission being granted this week for a new mega coal mine in the north of England. We cannot drill our way out of either the energy cost crisis or the climate emergency; the answer to both of those is a rapid transition away from oil and gas that delivers for both workers and the planet.

COP26 showed us that, when they work together, small nations can lead the world on climate justice. That is exactly the message sent by the launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, when a flotilla of countries joined together to plan for a fair and fast phase-out of fossil fuels. Chile, Fiji, and Washington were among the newest members to join the alliance and commit to fossil fuel phase-out dates at COP27. I expect that this Government’s programme of work to understand our energy requirements in Scotland will lead to us joining that growing network of climate leaders.

It is also crucial that the Scottish Government continues dialogue with Westminster about joining international calls for collective withdrawal from the Energy Charter treaty, which is now beyond reform. Fossil fuel companies should not be allowed to sue Governments for hundreds of millions of pounds if they introduce policies that limit the use of coal, oil and gas in line with our climate ambitions.

If I have time in hand.

Will the member take an intervention?

Sorry, in that case, no.

The biodiversity COP starting this week underlines how the climate and nature crises are two sides of the same coin. In Scotland, rising temperatures have threatened some of our most iconic species. The very habitats, such as peatlands, that can help us to naturally capture and store carbon from the atmosphere are now under threat, causing them to release the carbon that they hold. I look forward to the forthcoming Scottish biodiversity strategy starting to address those twin crises head on.

Much in the Scottish Government’s programme for government has put us on a faster route to net zero. There is an ambitious heat in buildings strategy; free bus travel for the under-22s, which we learned today is now benefiting more than half a million young Scots; a surge in tree planting; and a new deal for wind power. However, no Government is yet going far enough and the UKCCC and Scotland’s Climate Assembly have both highlighted areas for faster and more radical change, especially in the areas of aviation, peatland restoration and diet change. Like other members, I am sure that there will be further challenges when the UKCCC releases its Scotland update report tomorrow.

The challenging and necessary targets set by this Parliament mean that a far more ambitious climate plan must be developed early next year. The current plan is already way out of date and does not reflect the ambitions of the Bute house agreement. No options should be off the table in developing the new climate plan. The leadership shown by the French Government, which this week banned domestic flights where there is a rail alternative, signals the kind of options that must be considered if we are truly to deliver. Whether we currently have the powers is a different question, but we must spell out what is necessary.

It is clear that an outdated business-as-usual model will lead us down a road of no return. I will continue working as a member of the NZET Committee and with Greens in the Government to ensure that Scotland delivers transformative action on climate and nature.

I am struggling to think through how all this law can be retained in a fast-tracked way. Is there a competent way to fast-track retention of law? I think that David Bowles said earlier that we could put it all in an appendix and have thousands and thousands of laws.

Is there a danger that if laws were fast-tracked, that might be seen as being inadequate and could be legally challenged because proper impact assessments were not done for every single one of the thousands of laws? I am trying to understand what the complexities might be and whether there is a genuinely simple way, should ministers wish to use it, to retain that law.

Okay, but the main point here is that we have not adopted the acquis that the principles are part of, so we are no longer part of that. The principles might be in the treaty of Lisbon or whatever, but we are no longer part of that—we are not in that context any more—so where they get put is important.

I want to pick up on a point that Professor Reid raised at the beginning of the meeting—it would be good to get others’ reflections on it as well—about EU case law and its status, which has been built up over many decades. There is a phrase in the bill about EU case law restricting

“the proper development of domestic law.”

The committee has been struggling to understand what constitutes “proper development”, so I wonder whether Professor Reid could offer some thoughts on that. It would be useful to hear whether others have concerns or questions about how they think that that might play out with regard to the habitats regulations or other EU case law.