Chamber and committees

Actually, if it is okay, perhaps I can wrap up that question with another one. I was asking about the wording

“inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”

and how that is defined. Earlier, Jim Skea talked about the fact that subsidies can be used in a social context or an economic context. What is your perspective on that?

The second question that I would like to ask you directly, if you can still hear me, is about geopolitics in relation to India. After the agreement and the kind of breakdown of process at the last minute, quite quickly we saw India being blamed for watering down the commitment on fossil fuels in the agreement. Do you see an inequality there, given that the states that are perhaps putting pressure on India to reduce coal have had all the benefits of development of oil and gas over the past 200 years and are still developing them? I am interested in your perspective on both those issues, which are really about global equality and where things sit politically.

I found it useful for the regulations to be referred to the committee, because I think that there is a wider issue about the processes for traffic regulation orders being pretty cumbersome and time consuming, particularly for council officers.

I note that reform of this type of order will enhance the ability of members of the public to offer their views on the experimental orders that are being put in place, and that can form part of councils’ decision making on whether they should be taken forward in future. It is a welcome first step in amending these particular orders and making them fit for purpose.

The launch of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance was a seminal moment in Glasgow because, for the first time, it sent a message to coal-dependent states such as India that richer states such as our own are prepared to phase out oil and gas production with a just transition. The Danish minister who launched the alliance said:

“How can you be on a path to carbon neutrality but still aim to produce oil and gas to sell to others?”

Does the First Minister agree with that perspective, and when will Scotland join the alliance?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government will be doing to amplify the voices of the global south at the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. (S6F-00367)

It is clear that the Scottish Government is showing leadership. However, the global south has been clear that a just transition away from fossil fuels that leaves nobody behind must also be a priority at the COP.

Let us look at what other small nations of around 5 million people are doing by using their full powers over energy. New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland and Costa Rica are all moving on from the era of oil and gas. The case for independence rests on Scotland proudly joining them as a world leader in that real just transition. Does the First Minister agree?

The politics and the action have to be in line with the science, and so far, they are nowhere close.

The Scottish Parliament’s post-COP legacy to the young climate strikers, the global south, and the world will be to double down on our climate plans, take responsibility, drive a real just transition, and deliver the system change that is needed to tackle climate change. The hard work has barely begun.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the Danish Government regarding the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance. (S6O-00277)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. I am tempering my disappointment a little that the Scottish Government is not yet ready to join the alliance but, as the First Minister stated in a speech on Monday, transition from oil and gas

“is undoubtedly one of the most difficult issues we face”

and I agree with her. Can we maintain that dialogue, not just during but beyond the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—with the members of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, particularly countries such as Denmark, which has had a challenging progression in transitioning its gas sector? There is much that we can learn from and contribute to the discussion with countries that are drawing a line in the sand and moving beyond oil and gas, while continuing to take their workers with them.

COP26 is finally here and I am sure that many of us in the chamber will have mixed emotions. Perhaps we feel a sense of relief that it is finally happening, or a sense of hope and belief that we can deliver better agreements through the Glasgow talks. However, I hope that there is also a sense of collective guilt that no Government around the world has taken sufficient action to tackle the crisis.

The Paris agreement provided a skeleton of the framework that is needed to keep the increase to within 1.5°C. The Glasgow COP must now flesh that out with ambition from all nations acting in solidarity with those who have contributed the least to the crisis but who will inevitably suffer the most.

The pledges that states have made so far simply do not add up. We are heading towards an increase of nearly 3°C in global heating, which would be a huge climate injustice—a crisis that is based on the idea that some people are worth more than others, as Greta Thunberg described it.

The voice of the marginalised and colonised global south needs to be heard loud and clear at COP26. I look forward to the Scottish Government amplifying that voice using the Glasgow dialogues communiqué.

The focus on how we cut emissions is critical, but it cannot crowd out discussion and agreement on how to compensate for the vast amount of loss and damage to life and the economy that is already happening in the global south.

The annual $100 billion-dollar pledge that was made in Paris to help countries to adapt is just the starting point and it must be delivered in full. That is just the first bill from the cleaner half of the world to the developed nations such as ours for using our shared atmosphere as a waste dump for generations. It must be paid in full.

I suspect that many different COPs will take place in Glasgow, in the blue and green zones, on the streets, and in private lobbying spaces. For many of the businesses that will be providing the products, services and, I hope, fair work of the future, COP is a great opportunity to build confidence that rapid change is possible now. There is a first-mover advantage for Governments to drive recovery through investment in innovation supply chains while creating entirely new markets. However, we must also recognise that, for many fossil fuel corporations, COP26 is a further opportunity to steal the narrative around just transition, just as it tried for years to control the narrative about whether climate change was real.

Many corporations continue to spin the myth that maximising the economic recovery of every last drop of fossil fuel reserves is totally compatible with climate objectives, while parading false solutions, such as negative emissions technologies, as being capable of allowing their business models to continue largely unchanged. The time has come for all Governments to stop copying and pasting drivel from fossil fuel corporations into their energy strategies. For example, the concept of a net zero basin in the North Sea is utterly meaningless when the industry wants to scale up from 6 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil and gas extraction.

Last week, the UN production gap report showed how states are planning to allow the extraction of double the amount of fossil fuels that we can afford to burn if the heating increase is to stay under 1.5°C. Then we wonder why young people are so angry about the failure of Governments to address that basic fact of physics.

The cabinet secretary is aware that our parties do not have a shared vision for the role of CCS, which is a technology that is repeatedly overpromised on and underdelivered around the world. Relying on CCS to cut a quarter of Scotland’s emissions is risky. All the parties in the previous session of Parliament agreed that there needs to be a plan B for meeting our climate targets and delivering a just transition that does not rely on CCS. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the importance of working out that plan B now, rather than pinning all our hopes on a technology that might turn out to be neither credible nor ready in time?