S4M-02156 Climate Justice [Closing Speech]

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02156, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on climate justice.

09:15
... ... ...
11:28

Stewart Stevenson: 
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland’s international climate change agenda has always been to act as a model of international best practice. We are an industrialised nation and have a moral duty to play our part in tackling climate change and helping those who have contributed least to the problem to mitigate and adapt to our changing global climate.

We must not forget that it was our process of rapid development and industrialisation—which Marco Biagi and other members have referred to and from which we benefit today—that caused the carbon emissions that have ultimately resulted in the changing global climate. There can, therefore, be no doubt that we in the industrialised world are best placed to mitigate the effects of climate, and we have a moral duty to do so.

The climate justice approach must focus on what we can do to help those in the developing world, who have done the least to cause the problem but who are now the hardest hit by its effect. Given Scotland’s ambitious, world-leading legislation, which we all supported in the chamber, it is fitting that we are also leading the way in putting climate justice at the heart of our policy making in this area. I congratulate every member who has participated in the debate on their distinctive and interesting contributions. A number of issues have been raised that had not been part of my thinking before. I will take them away and think about them, even though, in the limited time that is available to me, I will not be able to deal with everything that has been said.

We will continue to seek to influence the EU and the wider international community to increase their ambition on climate change. However, even if global emissions of greenhouse gases stopped right now, climate change would continue for the next 30 or 40 years—past and present emissions determine that that is the case. That is why we must not forget the importance of adaptation and climate justice in the future.

Claire Baker asked about Rio+20. We have asked the UK Government for a place on the UK delegation. Places will be limited, so I do not know what the answer will be. I believe that the Welsh Government also seeks to be at Rio.

I congratulate SCIAF on having already commented on today’s debate. Its press release says:

“Today’s debate in the Scottish Parliament demonstrated cross-party support for the concept of climate justice, and a clear recognition of widespread public concern about the impact of climate change around the world.”

We can all share, momentarily, in the lustre of at least being part of a debate. We have to move to the point where we can share in dealing with the problem.

Part of Patrick Harvie’s amendment relates to consumption. Officials have been exploring how best to meet the section 37 reporting duty. Work on estimating Scottish consumption-based emissions has now been contracted out, and we plan to publish the results in respect of data up to 2009 before the summer recess. We are the first country in the world to do anything of this kind, so it is quite a formidable challenge. I will not overclaim with regard to the perfection of the analyses, but I think that we have made a very good start.

Patrick Harvie: I acknowledge that the collection of that data is a work in progress. Can the minister confirm that, following the publishing of the 2009 figures, such reporting to Parliament will become part of the normal reporting cycle of climate change targets?

Stewart Stevenson: I prefer at this stage to say that we will report on each year’s progress. The timetable for doing so is something that I will return to later.

Claudia Beamish opened her speech by saying, rightly, that there is a need to change behaviour and that we are talking about what is essentially a silent crisis. I found myself absolutely in agreement with that. She said that the effects are skewed and indiscriminate; others pointed that out, too. She also referred to the First Minister’s speech in Beijing in December. We have to set our own house in order and we have to set an example.

I was not aware of the example of 25 cities in China going for new eco-vehicles. I will look into that. When I was in China a couple of years ago, I visited an electric vehicle factory and found that the US Government had an order of 400 electric vans, which were just waiting to be shipped. China is doing much more than we sometimes imagine. If we are not careful, it might end up taking up many of the economic opportunities that exist.

Patrick Harvie rightly pointed to the great enlightenment figures who have contributed to modern thinking and whose statues and memorials we can see around us, particularly as we go along George Street and Princes Street. We should perhaps also remind ourselves that Adam Smith’s grave lies a few hundred metres from the door of the Parliament.

In response to one point that was made, I say that the Scottish climate justice fund will be in addition to any funds that are already allocated. We will hear more about that later.

I am glad that the Conservatives have participated in the debate in such a positive spirit. Jamie McGrigor said that climate change is one of the greatest challenges, and we absolutely agree with that. He personalised the issue by talking about the rainfall on Loch Awe: 140in is a formidable amount of rain. It is okay, Jamie—the rain was falling only on you; the rest of us were being treated quite differently.

Rob Gibson pointed out that we are expecting food prices to soar because of drought in south-east England—in Lincolnshire in particular—where there are areas of highly productive arable land. That situation will be repeated throughout Europe. As I said in my opening speech, climate change is not simply an issue for the third world: it will affect us directly, too.

Neil Findlay: The minister is going through the members who contributed to the debate. Jamie Hepburn described how the financial transactions tax could help on the issue of climate change. Can the minister explain why the two SNP MEPs did not support the tax in Europe?

Stewart Stevenson: I hope that Neil Findlay will support this Parliament having the full powers of a normal independent country so that we can participate in that sort of thing, but I do not want to be particularly political today.

Elaine Murray correctly highlighted the problems of drought, famine and starvation. Annabelle Ewing, among others, highlighted the importance of climate change for women and the effect that it has on them.

Paul Wheelhouse mentioned that even the UK’s strategic defence review identified climate change as a threat to military stability. I had not been aware of that, but it is another interesting take on the issue.

Mary Fee spoke about Jack McConnell’s work in setting renewables targets. I respect and recognise the continuity in our activity on climate change, although I personally admire Jack McConnell most for his anti-smoking efforts.

We talked about 0.3 per cent as the target for the current year; the target for the following year is of course 9.86 per cent. Jamie Hepburn mentioned that Alan Miller is watching us, and I am delighted that he is here to see the first debate in a Parliament anywhere in the world on the subject of climate justice.

Jim Hume said that, as a member of the United Kingdom, we can engage internationally. That is correct, although we could do much more in a different environment—but we should not spend too much time on that today.

Dennis Robertson referred to curriculum for excellence, and mentioned the achievement of Old Rayne primary school in his constituency. That is typical of what is happening in schools throughout Scotland. The idea that children are now sending their parents to bed early so that the lights go out to make a positive impact on climate change is a new one, but not necessarily a bad one.

In response to Margaret McDougall’s point, we have been supporting allotments through the climate challenge fund, so we are doing quite a lot in that regard. We are supporting 8,100 hectares of forestry this year, and moving towards our target of 10,000 hectares per year. Last year we supported just over 5,000 hectares. In response to Aileen McLeod’s point, I shall be lugging a mug as people in Dumfries have been doing.

We have heard excellent contributions from members on all sides of the Parliament. Members have raised a huge range of issues, from the Crown estate to national defence, so the debate has been wide ranging. The debate is but a start: inevitably, in the first ever debate on climate justice in a Parliament, we cannot cover the subject in its entirety. However, we will certainly ensure that others see all the contributions that have been made today.

Throughout history, we have as a nation been at the forefront of innovation. Our strong engineering background has put us in the vanguard of past industrial revolutions, and we have reaped the rewards as a high-carbon country. We are now at the forefront of a green industrial revolution, and we must ensure that in reaping the rewards of that low-carbon revolution at home, we take with us those who are less fortunate than ourselves and let them benefit from our innovation, knowledge and expertise in those emerging economies.

In making 2012 the year of climate justice, we must influence others to do the same. Again I quote Mary Robinson, who said:

“Climate change is a matter of justice. The richest countries caused the problem, but it is the world’s poorest who are already suffering from its effects.”

She went on to say that

”the international community must commit to righting that wrong.”