Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Opportunity knocks if firms seize chance on climate change

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 July 2009
WELCOME to the brave new world of Scotland under climate change legislation.
Last week's Climate Change Act was referred to by minister Stewart Stevenson as the "most ambitious and comprehensive piece of climate change legislation anywhere in the world".

Great timing, some might say, in the same week as we hear the economy
contracted 2.4 per cent in the first quarter of 2009 and jobs continue to be lost.

With Scotland contributing only 0.2 per cent of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), are these measures justified when companies need every bit of help to get out of the mire?

There are many obligations in the act. Holyrood, like Westminster, has committed itself to reduce GHGs by 80 per cent by 2050. However, it has also committed (pending talks at Copenhagen later in the year) to achieving a world-leading interim target of 42 per cent by 2020.

Where Westminster uses five-year carbon budgets (allowing good and bad years as long as the five-year target is met), Holyrood has committed to annual targets.

These will underpin all Scottish Government policy, and all public bodies must exercise their functions in a way that best contributes to the targets being met. The government must set out its policies for ensuring land use contributes to the targets in a land-use strategy. New duties are imposed on the government to promote energy efficiency and renewable heat.

But what will this mean in practice? More details are in the powers given to ministers. They must produce laws requiring assessment and improvement of the energy efficiency of non-domestic buildings (estimated cost: up to £64.7 million). Planning and building regulations and policy must be updated to ensure new buildings source a proportion of their energy from low and zero-carbon generation. Ministers are given the power to set targets for reduction of packaging (£250,000 pa), establish deposit and return schemes (£15-20m) and require businesses to produce waste prevention and management plans and provide recycling facilities. These are significant obligations, with potentially significant costs for business. The government acknowledges the costs of these policies are likely to result in structural adjustments to the economy, with employment re-allocated from energy-intensive to non-energy-intensive sectors.

But it is not all bad for business. The act provides some certainty on long-term government policy, allowing businesses to plan.

And there are incentives: ministers have power to introduce lower categories of rates for energy-efficient business premises. Many of the measures – improved efficiency, better site waste management and recycling – aim at greater efficiency and can actually improve the bottom line.

There are major openings in renewable energy and low-carbon technologies, carbon capture and storage, energy efficiency and distribution services and transport.

The low-carbon economy in Scotland was worth £8.5 billion in 2007, accounting for 73,000 jobs. It was estimated to have grown by 5.1 per cent in 2007-8, more than twice the rate of the Scottish economy as a whole. It is this potential, further accentuated by the new act, that leads the Scottish Government to talk of a green economic revival.

Given the 40-year target, the overall economic costs of the act are uncertain. Even taking into account the expected growth in the sectors above, costs are estimated at 1 to 2 per cent of Scottish GDP in 2050, or £1bn to £2bn at today's prices.

When you look at the alternative – a reduction of 5 to 20 per cent in global GDP from unchecked climate change, according to the Stern Review – it is difficult to argue against it.

The real test will be in how and when the government uses its new powers. There is a lot more law-making to come, and it is clear the impact on business must be an integral part of the government's reasoning. Business ought to lobby for the costs-saving measures to be phased in first.

Businesses should be looking at Scottish and UK law and policy, as well as future proposals. If they do not, they risk being unprepared and, more importantly, missing opportunities to be part of the green economic revival.

• Gordon McCreath is a partner with the law firm Pinsent Masons LLP.





The full article contains 719 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 July 2009 9:06 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 04/07/2009 04:30:55
Hmmmmm.... Lesson of the "widow's mite" springs to mind
2

Goat Boy,

04/07/2009 06:23:18
"With Scotland contributing only 0.2 per cent of global greenhouse gases" just what are we hoping to achieve? This is a good example of King Canute syndrome.

Enhanced Global Warming is coming, and the only thing we can do is take steps to minimise the impact.
3

The Strategist,

04/07/2009 08:57:26
OK Mr McCreath now tell us where the money is coming from to fund all these opportunities. Raising risk capital in this country is like pulling hens teeth.
4

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 04/07/2009 09:10:19
#4 The Strategist

That's the usual missing element of these grand 5-year plan chaps. Trying to view the business as a whole entity and in many cases struggling to raise capital and make a profit and not landed with further regulation. I don't object to sensible precautions and economising on fossil fuels - that makes sense from the viewpoint of conserving what we have but the "carbon emissions" excuse is largely hot air, taxation and punishment for having the cheek to run a private, profit-making enterprise. The SNP seem as bad if not worse than Liebore in that respect.
5

Unimpressed one,

04/07/2009 10:11:37
Still no ball park figure given for costs but we can expect it to be fairly hefty. Taxes will be imposed and handed back to the 'green' industries - a total recipe for disaster if ever there was. As for jobs these will be mostly in councils and quangos to police this lunacy. Meanwhile the US, and most likely much of the EU, cetainly China and India, are likely to reject draconian targets suggested in December.

So we in Scotland, having some of the worst health statistics in the developed world, must wear the hair-shirt of reduced growth and a burden on business to demonstrate to the rest of the world our 'green' credentials. Tragic.
6

Andrah,

Embrugh 04/07/2009 11:03:43
And to head up all of this we will be appointing a climate change Czar, Mr Jimmy K McCanute, MSP for West LaLashire.
7

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 04/07/2009 18:36:42
While some parts of this article are admirable, such as packaging and waste disposal. The bulk of it is pure twaddle and to use the Stern report for anything other than toilet paper is a waste of time.
8

woodchopper,

Leeper, USA 05/07/2009 01:33:23
The big corporations and politicans already have it sewen up. Big money and power is all this hoax is about.
9

El Franko,

06/07/2009 14:10:43
Quoting the Stern report except to mock it is not a good move. Stern's work was an intellectual disgrace, albeit a politically convenient and quite successful one from the point of view of the subversive alarmists. It will be hard to overestimate the harm these people have done, and will still do.

There is certainly a lot of money to be made out of the the climate alarmis. Gore for example has increased his personal wealth at least 10-fold. Companies like Enron were making a lot of money from the carbon credits craziness until they overreached, but others have appeared to take their place. Lobbying organisations have made large sums from government and corporate funding, such as the WWF, numerous alarmist web sites, and no end of 'trusts'. Their income has vastly exceeded the tiny budgets of the sceptics, many of whom are self-funded.

The science behind the alarmism is shoddy, while the politicking is impressive. This shame is crying out for wider exposure. Here is fuel for that:

http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.