The Scottish Government's programme

I wish to use my time to talk about the proposed climate change bill. We must work together in Parliament to ensure that the bill is fit for purpose. This morning, the First Minister made only one commitment relating to the bill, in reaffirming his target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The recent consultation drew a remarkable 21,000 responses from all around the world. I have heard it said before that Scotland's impact is small and insignificant in this global matter, but surely that level of international response demonstrates that people are waiting to see what we do and are urging us to grasp the opportunity to make a profound difference. I hope that we do not let them down.

While acknowledging the moral imperative to act on the issue, we should also recognise the economic opportunities for Scotland in moving to a low-carbon economy. A strong bill that has the backing of the whole Parliament will give business the certainty that it needs for it to invest in order to put us at the forefront of a new low-carbon global economy. The virtue of annual targets and steady progressive policies is that they give advance warning to the market of the scale of the task and provide a spur to specific innovation.

I want the Government to ensure that the eventual legislation includes these key issues: maintaining the 80 per cent emissions reduction target; insisting on annual targets; measuring the whole basket of greenhouse gases; and providing strong incentives and sanctions for public bodies to ensure that all the measures work. All emissions must be accounted for in the targets that are set out in the climate change bill. The exclusion of international aviation and shipping emissions from those targets would mean that a significant and growing percentage of emissions were going uncounted. The bill must also ensure that the Government of the day is held to account through scrutiny of forward plans as well as through proper reporting back.

There has been a range of comments about budgeting periods, but there is one clear message from scientists: we need emissions reductions of at least 3 per cent per year to keep on target. Without annual targets, there will inevitably be a drift, and the longer we leave it, the more punitive will be the measures that will have to be imposed. Friends of the Earth recently said:

"There are two ways society can get a grip on CO2 emissions. The best approach is to make a steady, achievable cut every year. The alternative is to wait until we have no choice but to do something, and then make drastic cuts-which may turn out to be too little, too late. It's like choosing a gentle path down the cliff or going over the void."

The SNP has argued that it is not practical to have annual targets, and it cites the lag of 20 months before greenhouse gas inventories are available, but is the real reason why the Government has backtracked on annual targets not more prosaic? Annual targets will be uncomfortable for the Government-they would be for any Government-which will from the outset be held to account here in Parliament. Grand gestures about an 80 per cent emissions reduction by 2050 need to be underpinned by real action.

I believe that it is possible to speed up the data collection process. Currently, provisional estimates are available after only three months. If it is to be taken seriously, the Government must commission research now to identify and remove the barriers to shorter reporting times for the various inventories. Giving evidence to Westminster's Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last year, Dr Alice Bows from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research explained:

"I would say that the likelihood is that if you wanted to make that quicker, I am sure that that would be possible because we have not actually been doing it for that long ... If people were more used to collecting emissions data on a monthly basis and submitting them more rapidly, then you could speed up that process."

Support should be given for more research into the sociological aspects of climate change. So far, technology has received far more research attention than have socioeconomic, cultural and political factors, and energy supply far more than energy demand.

I recently attended the Macaulay Institute's open day and was interested to hear from a social scientist about a new project that is examining behavioural change in relation to climate change. It is increasingly clear that, although technological innovation can reduce the energy requirement for specific activities and make low-carbon energy sources economically and environmentally viable, the impact on reducing carbon-intensive energy use will, critically, depend on broad public and political commitment to such a reduction.

Otherwise, increases in energy efficiency could simply raise demand for energy-intensive products and services.

Much of what needs to be done to tackle climate change does not need legislation, so I am disappointed that valuable time has been squandered over the past year. Opportunities have been missed, particularly in relation to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Achim Steiner, the United Nations under-secretary-general and the executive director of the UN Environment Programme, has said:

"Energy efficiency, along with cleaner and renewable forms of energy generation, is one of the pillars upon which a de-carbonized world will stand or fall. The savings that can be made right now are potentially huge and the costs to implement them relatively low if sufficient numbers of governments, industries, businesses and consumers act".

The potential for de-carbonising modern economies is huge. Energy efficiency measures can be taken and wind, solar and hydro power are carbon-free energy alternatives that are available today, but there is a lack of clarity about the Government's overall direction on renewables, which must be addressed. After 15 months in power, why does the Government have no energy strategy? Will the Government introduce policies immediately to tackle energy efficiency issues in the existing housing stock in a sustained way? When will there be a new biomass support scheme?

The Government has announced 15 bills today. I have no doubt that the one that could make the greatest difference is the proposed climate change bill. The response to the consultation on the proposed bill gives the Government a clear mandate to be bold. It identifies that, although everyone in Scotland must play their part in tackling climate change, we need leadership, direction, clarity and certainty on the way forward.

The First Minister said this morning that the legislative programme on climate change and the environment will propel his Government into a new leadership role, but that that is a role in which he will be comfortable. I do not particularly care whether Mr Salmond is comfortable but, on the climate change issues, I would like him to be bold and to show leadership.