Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a complex landscape; there are many different rooms in Brussels to be in or out of. I ask Dr Marks then Professor Pittock the same question.

I have a follow-up question. The Law Society of Scotland’s submission makes the point that formal mechanisms for monitoring our international engagement are needed. Given the potentially complex picture that you have just outlined, what should those mechanisms look like? Dr Marks suggested that there should be a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. How can we get a grip of what the work looks like? I am not suggesting that there should be a list of every Burns supper that takes place—that might be a bit too much—but what should the formal mechanisms of scrutiny look like?

Perhaps we can start with Dr Hughes, then others might want to comment.

Listening to those comments, I was struck by Dr Hughes’s reference to a “multitrack paradiplomatic process” and wondered where sub-state legislatures and governance might fit into that alongside the actions of states. Do you have more examples of that? One that springs to mind for me comes from a discussion that I had with a Canadian mission in Brussels, from which I learned that there had been quite a lot of bilateral discussions between Québec and Wallonia during the talks on the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Do you have any examples of sub-state actors being involved in wider multilateral discussions that might point to how Scotland could be involved with the UK in that respect?

It is clear that work has started at long last on this important area. I raise also the related issue of extending the powers of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to enable it to tackle the wildlife crime that we see in many areas of Scotland. It has been 10 years since that was first proposed, and I believe that the minister is the seventh minister to consider action in that area. When can that work begin?

I thank Gillian Martin for raising the topic for debate. From her role as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in the previous session, she will be aware of the cross-party concerns that the committee expressed unanimously about a reliance on CCS to cut Scotland’s emissions by a quarter by 2030. In fact, the committee went further and, in its report on the climate change plan, which was published only in February this year, called for the Scottish Government to produce a plan B alternative. As we head towards the beginning of a new climate change plan cycle next year, I hope that the minister is aware of the pressing need to come up with that plan B.

Capturing carbon emissions and storing them underground appears, at face value, to be part of the solution, but the unfortunate reality is that, so far, the history of CCS deployment has been one of overpromise and underdelivery—

I would like to finish my sentence.

That is at a time when we need technology that can be rapidly and cost-effectively deployed in the next eight years.

I will certainly give way to Ms Martin, if I can get the time back.

No. I think that the global context is that there has been a technical failure with the capture of emissions. That is just the reality. I will say more about that later in my speech.

The key test is whether CCS accelerates a phase-out of fossil fuels to keep us to a rise of less than 1.5°C or whether it just builds in dependence that delays a just transition while diverting and crowding out investment in renewables.

I will offer an example that relates to the blue hydrogen that would be produced from the carbon storage element of the Acorn project. The current plans are to blend blue hydrogen, at a rate of 20 per cent, into the gas grid, but the question that that begs is about the other 80 per cent of the fuel mix, which will continue to be natural gas that will be burned in boilers with no carbon abatement. At the point in the next decade when we should be scrapping gas boilers, we would be extending our dependency on a gas grid and gas fuel, with blue hydrogen as the enabler.

The argument that will be made in reply is that we are talking about a transition and that, in the future, we will be able to switch from blue hydrogen to green hydrogen, which is made from renewable energy. I get that, but green hydrogen will be a precious and highly sought-after commodity that will be used to fuel the steel furnaces of Europe. I hope that Scotland will have a serious role to play in that, but it would be an expensive low-grade use of green hydrogen to use it just to heat our homes.

There are critical questions to be answered about the effectiveness of CCS. A recent report by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research showed that the scale of deployment that would be necessary to reduce emissions in line with our climate targets has not yet been demonstrated anywhere in the world. Projects around the world have received billions in public investment, but with pretty minimal success.

In fact, right now, CCS global capacity is 0.1 per cent of annual global emissions per year. Not only are these technologies underdelivering, but capacity is not intended to increase significantly until 2030. Deployment takes six to 10 years from construction to completion, by which point our emissions targets will already have been missed.

There are critical questions that we need to ask of, and which need to be answered by, Government. For example, what guarantees will there be with regard to the capture rate for plants that will feed into the Acorn project? What about the huge energy requirements to power CCS, which risk causing more emissions than will actually be captured?

It has been a couple of weeks since COP26, and, yes, the eyes of the world are on Scotland, with a demand for meaningful change. However, we need to cast a critical eye particularly on strategies and solutions that come from the boardrooms of oil and gas corporations, which, to be honest, have spent decades denying even the existence of climate change. We just need to have a bit more critical thinking about the deployment of these technologies.

Will Dean Lockhart give way?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its progress with implementing the recommendations of the grouse moor management review group. (S6O-00448)