from Holyrood Magazine, 22 February 2008
The heat of the sun, the intensity of the rain, the force of the storm: these have always been natural phenomena, concocted by a power greater than humanity to warm, water and batter us.
But now something is changing, something so fundamental that it is altering the way we perceive the world. And as a result, we have to change the way we think, the way we talk and the way we act.
For the first time in history, the global climate is no longer entirely a product of nature. The pollution belched into the atmosphere by factories, farms, homes and vehicles has grown so great that it is disrupting weather patterns.
The change is so profound we have to rethink the very language we use. Should floods, droughts and heat waves still be labelled as natural disasters? Or should they be described as what they are now becoming: human disasters?
Faced with such a shift, it is understandable that a few revert to denial, or find other ways of trying to shrug it off. But that cannot be the right course. Better by far to do something about it.
And, to its credit, that is what the Scottish government is trying to do. With the launch in January of its consultation on Scotland’s first climate change bill, it has set its sights high. Its aim is to cut climate pollution 80% by 2050.
This is higher than the 60% reduction target in the equivalent Westminster legislation, and much higher than any target agreed internationally. But it is justified by the science.
The latest report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that the world will need to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases that are warming the globe by between 50% and 85% by 2050. That should prevent a global temperature rise in excess of 2-2.4 degrees centigrade.
If the rise is limited to two degrees, there is a decent chance that the world can avoid disaster. Above that, according to the IPCC, up to two billion people will face water shortages, and many millions will suffer hunger, displacement and extreme weather. There is also a risk that warming more than two degrees will trigger dangerous and irreversible changes like the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would cause sea levels to rise up to six metres.
Such alarming threats prompt bold rhetoric. “Climate change will change the world we live in,” say sustainable growth secretary, John Swinney, and climate change minister, Stewart Stevenson. “As a society we are at the cusp choosing which world we will pass to our children: a greener, sustainable economy, or a world where mass deaths from droughts, famines and storms and the extinction of species is the norm.”
They argue that, as an advanced, industrialised nation, it is Scotland’s responsibility to reduce emissions as much as it can. The consultation document on the climate change bill also deals robustly with the suggestion that Scotland’s pollution is so insignificant on a global scale, that there’s no point in bothering to do anything.
“There are those who argue that as Scotland emits only 0.15% of the world’s greenhouse gases, we should not burden ourselves with a specific Scottish target to reduce emissions and we should instead wait for larger countries to take action,” the document says. “The Scottish Government believes that this is an irresponsible position: we led the industrial revolution and we have a moral obligation to lead the revolution to a new greener, cleaner, sustainable economy.”
Such arguments and aspirations have won the Scottish government warm praise. “Climate change is the biggest threat we face,” says Dr Dan Barlow, acting director of the environmental group, WWF Scotland, “and this bill may be the most important piece of legislation we will see in our lifetime.”
A similar sentiment is expressed by more than 30 environment and development campaigners, trade unions, faith organisations and community groups under the banner of the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland coalition. “This landmark bill is a great opportunity for Scotland to become a world leader in tackling climate change,’ says coalition chair, Mike Robinson.
Business leaders also welcome the consultation, though perhaps not quite as enthusiastically. “The challenge of climate change is one every company must take seriously”, says Iain McMillan, director of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland.
“Business in Scotland looks forward to working with our politicians to ensure a credible framework is in place to manage the transition to a low carbon economy, one that encourages environmental improvements but also recognises the global nature of climate change and business competition.”
So far, so good. But of course that is not the whole story. Though the intentions, and the headlines, are generally admired, there are underlying concerns. The 93-page consultation document poses a series of questions, but leaves many of them unanswered. Some could make quite a difference.
It has not been decided, for example, exactly what the 80% target means. The government talks about an 80% cut in “emissions” but it’s not clear what those emissions will actually include. One suggestion is that it is just applied to the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).
The consultation document points out that that would be the simplest because flows of CO2 in the economy are relatively well measured and understood. But the contribution of the other five recognised greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride - are also important.
They may, however, be more difficult to control. Methane leaking from old mines or old landfills could be hard to prevent, the government points out, while the quantities of the gas being emitted by farm animals may not be capable of being cut back without damaging agriculture. The scope for further reductions in refrigerants like hydrofluorocarbons could be limited.
“If non-CO2 gases prove difficult and/or very costly to abate, greater reductions in CO2 will be needed to compensate,” says the consultation document. “Therefore a target based on a basket of greenhouse gases may place additional costs on the economy as compared to a CO2-only target.”
Environmental groups, however, argue it is vital that the 80% target covers all six greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide. This would be more effective, they say, and more in line with international initiatives to combat climate change launched by the United Nations and the European Union.
Then there are the critical questions of whether the target will include Scotland’s contribution to pollution from international shipping and aviation. A leaked United Nations report has revealed that emissions from shipping are three times higher than previously thought, amounting to 1.12bn tonnes of CO2 or nearly 4.5% of the global total.
Yet the Scottish government’s view is that the problem is “best addressed at an international level.” It makes a very similar argument on aviation, pointing out that only emissions from ships and planes whose journeys start and end in the UK are included in the current statistics. There would be “complications” in trying to include international flights from Scotland, the consultation document says.
It notes that aviation is due to be included in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme after 2012, which should make airlines pay for increasing their pollution. And the document doesn’t shut the door to incorporating aviation and shipping in Scottish law at some time in the future.
“As methods for apportioning aviation and shipping emissions within an international framework develop and are agreed internationally, it may become possible for these emissions to be satisfactorily included in Scotland’s reduction targets,” it adds. “There will be scope in the bill to include these sectors in the legislative framework at a future date.”
But this is unlikely to satisfy the bill’s critics, who point out that aviation is growing so fast that it could account for as much as half of UK carbon emissions by 2050. “Failing to include aviation is like going on a diet, but still eating as much chocolate as you like,” observes the environmental group, Friends of the Earth Scotland.
The World Development Movement, an anti-poverty campaign, argues unless aviation is included in the bill's targets, it will fail to bring an end to the devastating impact Scotland's emissions have on the developing world. "Climate change is the greatest threat facing the world's poor, yet it is countries like our own that are responsible,” says the group’s Scottish spokeswoman, Kirstie Shirra.
“Currently Scotland's five million citizens are responsible for as much CO2 as 150 million people in Bangladesh. This is a situation which needs to change now if we are to avert irreversible climate chaos.”
Shirra continues: “If plans for airport expansion across Scotland go ahead, and the government does not include international aviation emissions in its targets, we will end up with a very false picture of our emission reductions.” Plans to expand both Edinburgh and Glasgow airports are included in the Scottish government’s National Planning Framework, published in January.
The biggest disagreement on the climate change bill is over how to ensure that good progress is made towards the 80% target every year. The Scottish National Party’s manifesto for the 2007 election made a clear commitment to introduce “a climate change bill with mandatory carbon reduction targets of 3% per annum”.
That would ensure that cuts of 80% were reached by 2050, and would avoid accusations that ministers were guilty of making promises that would only be tested decades after they left office. Unfortunately, however, the SNP seems to be backtracking on its manifesto commitment.
“The Scottish government recognises that annual targets could help to encourage progress by governments,” says the consultation document, “but does not think that mandatory annual targets would create a credible framework, due to the large fluctuations in Scotland’s emissions.”
Pollution can vary significantly from year to year for reasons that are often beyond the Scottish government’s control, like fuel prices and temperatures, the document argues. It points out that there was a 5.7% drop in emissions between 1998 and 1999, followed by a 4.5% increase between 1999 and 2000.
Instead the government is planning what it cryptically calls “statutory multi-year budgets” backed by a “strong framework of annual reporting and scrutiny.” This, it says, will “reflect the likely nature of Scotland’s emissions and potential for reductions in order to provide a strong, credible signal to business and industry.”
But this is not going to please the critics because it gives this government, and any future governments, too much wiggle room. “Annual emission reduction targets of at least three per cent should be put into statute, in line with the SNP manifesto commitment,” says WWF Scotland’s Dan Barlow. “This is of critical importance to get us on a steady path towards the target of 80% reduction.”
WWF Scotland is also calling for an independent expert body to be set up in Scotland to monitor the nation’s progress in cutting emissions. This would be the best way of providing the scrutiny necessary to ensure effective and credible implementation, the group contends.
The Scottish government, however, suggests that monitoring should be done by the UK Committee on Climate Change, at least for the first three years. But in case evaluation shows that this isn’t working, there are likely to be provisions in the Scottish bill to create a specifically Scottish committee.
There are a series of other points that remain unresolved, like how the Scottish target will relate to pollution permits that may be traded internationally, or to what extent the government will be allowed to ‘bank’ or ‘borrow’ emissions from year to year.
Deeper down, there are potential problems that are barely mentioned. How is the government going to control the pollution from ever-increasing car and lorry use? All the signs so far - abolishing tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges, committing to a new Forth road bridge and pursuing major road-building projects - suggest that ministers haven’t yet managed to join all the dots.
Most fundamental of all, is the inherent contradiction between growing the economy to improve everyone’s standard of living and the need to cut the pollution that is wrecking the climate. Can the Scottish government stay wedded to the conventional concept of economic growth at the same time as implementing truly sustainable development? Time will tell.
Comments