Click here to return to the Johnstone's View Index

Johnstone's  View 31st October 2008

The World Wildlife Fund issued a report this week which states that Scotland is living above its means and that, when all the countries of the world are placed in order, we are the fifteenth worst in the world. The strange thing is that this report does not refer to our enthusiastic appetite for borrowing money; no, it refers to our ability to emit well over our fair share of carbon in order to support our twenty first century life style.

So it is that Scotland is to have its own Climate Change bill, in addition to the one which is currently passing through the Westminster Parliament, so that we can do our bit to offset the problems which we are obviously responsible for creating.

Now, as a Conservative and a Unionist, few of you would have been surprised if I, in my capacity as the Conservatives Scottish spokesman on climate change, had opposed separate Scottish legislation but that is not the position I have chosen to take. Quite the contrary in fact, I believe that there are several benefits to the Scottish approach.

Firstly, Scotland starts from a quite different place on the emissions scale from the United Kingdom as a whole. True, our overall emissions are roughly similar but, if we are to have specific targets for particular sectors of the economy and specific substances, the comparison does not stand up and therefore, Scottish targets may be more appropriate.

Secondly, Scotland has a quite different level of potential when it comes to finding solutions to the problem of global warming so a separate Scottish Bill could be used to encourage the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions which are specific to the Scottish situation.

Finally, the Scottish legislation is progressing some eighteen months to two years behind the UK Bill, giving us the chance to introduce measures which are more practical and, therefore, more directly effective than the more ‘framework’ based approach being taken by the UK government.

Not all is well though. Our Climate Change Minister is fond of the concept that Scotland should ‘set an example’ to the rest of the world. I am not keen on being made an example of if it means that extra burdens will be placed on our local authorities, our NHS trusts and our private businesses, large and small, just at the time when the economy is accelerating into recession. Our economy must remain competitive through these difficult times and if we are to have any further burdens placed upon us, they must only be as part if an international agreement, not Scotland only.

Often, people turn to government at a time of crisis and say ‘DO SOMETHING’ and, feeling that it is their responsibility, government will run around doing ‘ANYTHING’ so as to avoid the charge that they have done ‘NOTHING’. While I am happy to assist the government in facing up to its responsibilities, the need to keep calm and not do anything they might regret later has never been so vital.

This brings us to the concept of ‘Carbon Accounting’. This is very much like real accounting but deals with carbon emissions rather than money. There is a real danger however, that elements of ‘creative accountancy’ may also be incorporated into this developing area of practice.

The Climate Change Bill will set up a “Carbon Budget” and current legislative proposals would attribute a cash value to our carbon emissions, then incorporate these costs into everyday financial planning.  If we then look at the chief offenders in the field of carbon emissions, we find that they are, farming, forestry, tourism, transport with a particularly damaging role for the oil and gas industries as the producers and distributors of fossil fuels!

This scenario suggests to me that we in the North East of Scotland may as well give up now and move somewhere with a warmer climate!

With this in mind, I sat down with the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change committee this week to begin the scrutiny of the Government budget for 2009/10, with particular reference to its impact on climate change. My early conclusion is that, in the opinion of a number of experts in climate change, this is a budget for growth not for carbon reduction and the language of climate change is not reflected in the detail.

I left the committee feeling strangely reassured that, in an economic environment where carbon emissions are likely to fall sharply as the economy goes into recession, this budget, planned for “growth”, may yet serve the purpose of limiting the rate of decline.