To successfully tackle climate change, we need to bring people with us and be serious about delivery. But if the UK and Scottish governments had a report card on tackling net zero, it would be marked “could do better”. And there is indeed a report card saying exactly that.

The independent Climate Change Committee thinks the UK has “lost its clear global leadership on climate action” and that, in Scotland, many of the lofty SNP targets are “without meaning”. Both governments are chastened by the experts’ view that, without a different course, “the trend of failure will continue”. In different ways, they are failing their constituents and the global community.

The UK Government has changed the narrative on net zero with the framing of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s controversial announcement last month. The move could still be compatible with net zero, but it seems to pit those who do not believe urgent action is required on climate change against those ‘eco-zealots’ who stop people going about their daily lives. This polarisation on a policy that once had consensus is deeply unhelpful.

That said, between 1990 and 2021, the UK Government delivered a cut in emissions by 48 per cent, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country, and was the first major economy to set net zero in law.

In a very different manner, the Scottish Government is also failing. Its narrative is great – perhaps even amazing – so much so that in Scotland we have some of the most ambitious targets in the world. But that ambition is matched by an equally amazing failure to deliver.

Scotland is only a 1.3 per cent circular economy, considerably beneath the 7.5 per cent UK level. Barely a tenth of the promised offshore wind jobs have been delivered, and the household recycling target for 2013 has still to be met a decade on. Nationalist ministers still haven’t come good on the flagship promise to ban biodegradable waste to landfill by 2021, and half of their other biodiversity targets have been missed.

The path to net zero is going to be challenging and difficult to achieve, but like any crisis humanity has shown that these hurdles can be overcome. For Scotland, after more than a decade of platitudes, the challenge is to pick the low-hanging fruit – something that still hasn’t been achieved – and then make some serious decisions which will be risky and uncomfortable.

In terms of energy security, there will be a need for oil and gas in the years ahead, and it’s better to use secure domestic supplies with high regulatory standards, shorter supply chains and lower emissions, than the alternative of importation. A stable and reliable energy mix is needed to reduce our susceptibility to global spikes and that includes a role for nuclear as a long-term, low-emission provider.

For renewables projects, the definition of community benefit should be expanded so that everyone can share in the benefits with renewable energy bonds worthy of consideration. The bioeconomy must be looked at, like the potential to use anaerobic digestion to use bio-resources, such as food waste and diversion from landfill, to generate energy remotely, reduce artificial fertiliser use (which is emission-intensive), and diversify rural economies.

This is about so much more than the familiar notion of “saving the planet”. A sensible approach to net-zero initiatives can make life better and cheaper for people and businesses too.

Take, for example, the heating of our homes. District heating can provide more efficient heating with a lower environmental impact than individual boilers, but the Scottish Government still hasn’t developed the regulatory or finance solutions to attract investment needed for widespread use. We need to target support into maximum value projects to increase buildings’ energy efficiency and insulation before going down the road of mandating the use of devices like heat pumps for existing homes. And the unfortunate part of that is accepting that, yes, there may be a cost to homeowners.

We often talk about recycling in terms of inconvenience and cost to the individual or business owner. But this does a disservice to the fact having an effective recycling regime would be an economic boost through the construction of recycling plants. The same goes for transport. People understand the era of petrol and diesel cars is unlikely to last forever, but they will be reluctant to come along with the decision-makers unless there is a strong public transport network to compensate.

This requires serious investment and political will, and imaginative solutions for rural communities where demand may be low, but never-the-less essential. And we need to shift some of the responsibility away from government and onto those in receipt of public money via procurement. If you’ve been handed a money-spinning contract, you should be able to demonstrate how your work is reducing emissions and using resources responsibly.

These are all things which can be achieved through the Scottish and UK governments working together. But yet, there is very little evidence of it happening.

Last week, we held a debate in the Scottish Parliament on climate action. I voted against the Scottish Government motion, but unfortunately against my own party’s too. It’s the first time since being elected in 2016 I have done this. I’m fortunate my colleagues have enabled me to take a divergent view, with many welcoming healthy debate on the topic. Had I been in the SNP, as Fergus Ewing discovered, I may have been out on my ear.

The climate emergency is a challenge like no other, and so much bigger than party politics. It’s time for the governments in Edinburgh and London to come to that view too.

Maurice Golden is a Scottish Conservative MSP for North East Scotland

I rebelled over net zero because the climate is bigger than party politics – Conservative MSP Maurice Golden

Comments