Climate Change

I thank the minister for bringing to the chamber this timely debate on climate change. I imagined that after countless committee appearances and numerous debates on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill during the first half of the year, he might have become rather fed up at the sight of me and my committee colleagues, but he is back for more. I reassure him that although we may have had our differences over certain aspects of the bill, we are singing from the same sheet today, and I am pleased at the outward-looking nature of the Government's motion.

In the months that we spent working on our bill, we naturally focused on a great many details, but it is very much the bigger picture that has been in focus this week as the COP15 got under way in Copenhagen. I do not think that there will be a single dissenting voice in the chamber when I say that we look to the participants in the talks to bring forward the most ambitious commitments and reach a legally binding agreement at the earliest opportunity that will prevent world temperatures from rising by more than 2°C.

The threat that we face from human-caused climate change is very real and very serious. I do not quite agree with the newspaper headlines that proclaim that COP15 represents our two weeks to save the world, but it is perhaps fair to say that we have two weeks in which we must at least start to save the world.

The fact is that, here in Scotland, we can cut our carbon emissions by 42 per cent, by 80 per cent or by 100 per cent, or we can turn everything off completely, but it will not make a difference unless the rest of the world is with us. It is therefore gratifying that in the past few weeks so many nations have announced their own commitments to cut emissions. Some of those are welcome commitments, but some need to go much further. We need countries that are willing to take the lead and set an example for others to follow.

Although Scotland is, disappointingly, not officially represented in the negotiations, we have already set our example with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I believe that the targets that we have enshrined in law are the minimum for which any developed nation should aim. Indeed, I hope that we can achieve even greater reductions. The motion rightly alludes to the fact that nations find themselves in different circumstances so it is likely that a range of targets and commitments will be needed to find the best overall deal. That is okay. It is only right. However, everybody needs to remember that, on the whole, it is the world's richest countries that contribute the most to global warming and the world's poorest countries that will suffer the most devastating consequences.

I certainly do not envy the negotiators in Copenhagen. It will not be easy to find the right combination and the right compromises. This week, some of the many differences between parties have been exposed already. The leak of the draft text that was prepared by the Danish hosts was certainly not ideal, but it at least served to highlight some of the things that need to be addressed and, I hope, to underline how vital it is that the UN and its representatives are not sidelined in the negotiations. There is too much at stake to risk the talks becoming fractured over leaked and unofficial documents.

Bringing together the developed world, the rapidly industrialising world and the developing world is not going to be easy. We cannot allow industrialisation to continue without restrictions on carbon emissions, yet it seems unfair to impose on expanding economies handicaps that we never had to face. I firmly believe that just as important as the limiting of carbon emissions is that industrialised nations put in place proper support and incentives to encourage developing nations to turn to sustainable technologies as an integral part of their growth. Similarly, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that it is only right for the poorest nations to be given financial support to help them adapt to the effects of climate change. I certainly hope that that will be properly addressed in Copenhagen.

Ultimately, of course, the parties at Copenhagen can put forward the most ambitious targets imaginable, but until they are acted on, they will be just that-targets. Getting an agreement will be a challenge, but the hardest work lies not during next eight days but during the next 40 years. Governments can and must do a lot, but making a difference will still rely greatly on the public's attitude.

On Saturday, I had the pleasure of joining 7,000 or so other people to march-sorry, that should be to flow-through the streets of Glasgow as part of the wave climate protest. Another 50,000 people took part in London. There is no lack of public awareness. Indeed, despite the levels of scepticism that remain, there is no lack of desire to take action, but the desire to take action and the actual taking of action are two different things. If newspaper reports are to be believed, Copenhagen has been swamped with some 1,200 limousines to chauffeur around people from the various delegations, and its airports will receive more than 140 private jets. That will happen while the city is hosting supposedly the most climate-conscious politicians in the world.

I say that not by way of criticism-although I would hardly applaud it-but to highlight that it is our actions and not our words that show our true commitment. Of course there will be times when we need to fly to places or travel by car, but each of us needs to consider carefully our actions and our carbon footprint. Engaging fully with the public and with industry is absolutely key if we are successfully to tackle climate change. Scotland's public engagement strategy is due to be published by the end of next year, but I take this opportunity strongly to encourage the minister to do everything in his power to accelerate that timescale as much as possible. The sooner we properly engage with the public on fighting climate change, the better our chance of succeeding.