By stewartb
Back on 23 April this year, the BBC News website had the headline: ‘Scotland in ‘dangerous’ moment for climate goals’.
Following an appearance before a Holyrood committee by Chris Stark, the outgoing CEO of the UK Climate Change Committee, the BBC reported Mr Stark’s remarks on Scottish Government targets: ‘THERE WAS NO POLICY PACKAGE THAT COULD DELIVER ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE NINE-FOLD INCREASE IN DECARBONISATION LEVELS NEEDED TO HIT THAT GOAL.’ (my emphasis) viz. reducing greenhouse gases by 75% by 2030. Within its process of annual reviews, when did the CCC first reach that conclusion – just recently? Mr Stark is quoted saying that 2030 target to reduce emissions by 75% from 1990 levels was “BEYOND CREDIBLE”. Given this context, surely NOT abandoning a “beyond credible” target would have been plain daft!
Various claims have been made regarding why this formal 75% target came into being in the first place – due to opposition parties’ pushing for such a high aspirational target in Holyrood? And it is far from straightforward to untangle the reasons for the target not being met – was it inevitable given its stretch without imposing undue harm to ‘just transition’ and other economic objectives and necessities; culpability for falling short lying with the Scottish Government alone or also down to the UK government failings etc.?
Then today (2 May) in The National there is a comment piece by Dale Vince, described as a ‘green industrialist and founder of Ecotricity’. It’s headlined ‘SCOTLAND HAS A CHANCE TO LEAD ON GREEN ENERGY’. Oddly, the content rather implies that Scotland and its government in Edinburgh have the agency enjoyed by ‘normal’ independent nation states! Notwithstanding this, it does make a few points of relevance to the earlier part of this blog post:
‘The trigger for scrapping the 2030 emissions target appears to have been the missing of the target for 2021 – but IT’S IRRATIONAL TO SCRAP A TARGET BECAUSE OF MISSING IT – especially as it was only by two percentage points.’
Missed by just two percentage points? Is this factually correct – anyone? And “Irrational to scrap a target because of missing it’ – that is a quite different take on the matter from Mr Stark’s “beyond credible”!
Mr Vince adds: ‘… abandoning government climate commitments undermines confidence in the industry and government policy.’ So industry would prefer sticking with a target that in Stark’s – and also formally the CCC’s expert view presumably – was “beyond credible’? This is all becoming very confusing, offering up all sorts of opportunities for political opportunism and mischief.
And then some UK context from Vince: ‘Across the globe countries are racing ahead with their transitions to a green economy while the UK CURRENTLY RANKS LAST ON GREEN SPENDING OUT OF THE FIVE BIGGEST WESTERN EUROPEAN ECONOMIES.’
And more from Mr Vince: ’We’re well on the way, with green energy making up approaching 50% of the UK’s grid supply each year. The Scottish Government recently announced that for the first time renewable technologies generated the equivalent of 113% of Scotland’s overall electricity consumption.
‘This is the highest recorded to date, and A 26 PERCENTAGE POINT INCREASE COMPARED TO 2021 – as former energy secretary Neil Gray stated: “This shows the enormous potential of Scotland’s green economy.”
Left Foot Forward – ‘founded in 2009 by Will Straw to provide hard-hitting news and comment, written by and for the UK left’ – published an article on 22 April entitled: ‘CHRIS PACKHAM TAKES APART UK GOVERNMENT’S CLIMATE POLICIES – “OUR GOVERNMENT’S POLICIES.. ARE NOT ONLY COOKING THE PLANET, THEY ARE JUSTIFYING THAT BY COOKING THE BOOKS”. The remarks were made on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg after there had been an interview with the Tory Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho. We’re also told that: ‘During the show, the head of the Climate Change Committee, Chris Stark, said the Prime Minister’s RECENT CLIMATE POLICY ROLLBACKS had “SET US BACK” ON climate change, FURTHER UNDERMINING THE GOVERNMENT’S CLIMATE RECORD.‘
On 20 April, the BBC News website had this headline: ‘Chris Stark: Rishi Sunak has set us back, head of climate change watchdog says’. In the article there is this: ‘.. Mr Sunak’s Downing Street had sent a message to the rest of the world that “the UK is LESS AMBITIOUS ON CLIMATE THAN IT ONCE WAS, and that is EXTREMELY HARD TO RECOVER”.
And then we learn: ‘In the autumn, Mr Sunak DELAYED a ban on new petrol and diesel cars, and WEAKENED targets on phasing out gas boilers, as part of A MAJOR SHIFT in green policy. “I THINK IT’S SET US BACK,”
And more from Stark: ‘He said the UK had been successful in “decarbonising how we generate electricity, especially by closing coal-fired powerplants”. But to get to net zero, more needs to be done on “how we heat homes, or how we deal with the industrial emissions that we have in this country, what we do with farming [and] transport systems”. “It’s in those other areas that WE SEE THE GAP,” he said. “I definitely feel WE’RE AT RISK.”
The reference to the UK ‘decarbonising how we generate electricity’ is notable: how much of that has been delivered from within and from offshore Scotland? The CCC’s CEO identifies: ‘less ambition’ in Westminster government; ‘gaps’ in delivery plans to achieve net zero; the UK at ‘risk’ etc. due to flawed Westminster government action or inaction.
Mr Stark is also reported saying that it was “desperately disappointing” that the SNP government in Edinburgh had ditched one of its climate targets this week. But he said THE TARGETS HAD BEEN “OVER-AMBITIOUS” FROM THE START.’ Notwithstanding this, in the same interview he ‘called on Labour leader SIR KEIR STARMER TO BE MORE “BOLD” when it comes to climate change. “You regularly hear Ed Miliband [the shadow net zero secretary] talk about the transition, of course, on the Labour side, but Keir Starmer, of course, DOESN’T TALK ABOUT IT QUITE SO MUCH,” he said.’
I’d argue that Mr Stark’s rhetoric here when referring to the actions/intentions of the Tories and Labour in Westminster is ‘mild’ – less headline grabbing – than his choice of words (e.g. ‘beyond credible’) when referring to the Scottish Government!
(For information, according to the BBC News website on 6 October 2023 – ‘Dale Vince: Major Labour donor to stop funding Just Stop Oil”: ‘Mr Vince’s green energy company Ecotricity has donated more than £1.4m to Labour since 2014, comprising donations to the party itself as well as leader Sir Keir Starmer and deputy leader Angela Rayner. The company also donated £70,000 to the Liberal Democrats in 2015/16, and £30,000 to the Green Party in 2013.’)
Talking-up Scotland / Scottish media fact checking is like shooting fish in a barrel 
It’s very hard to meet all your green commitments whilst another country controls your energy.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Impossible in fact and that’s just the way the BritNat state intends to keep it. Scotland is in great peril while shackeld to the UK/England.
LikeLiked by 3 people
100% AGREE HOW DO WE STOP THESE MODERN DAY ROBIN HOODS
stealing all of Scotlands assets
LikeLiked by 5 people
Hmm that’s a very tricky one…independence, so Scotland like all other countries on the planet having control of Scotland’s economy and energy policy and control of such etc…just a thought.
LikeLike
Scottish government decided in its wisdom as part of this policy to tackle global warming that it would be a good idea to end all flights from Scotland to English cities other than London so sitlines dropped their flights to English cities from Scotland , you now have to go by train or you can fly from Edinbugh or Glasgow or Aberdeen or Dundee to London then get a flight ffom London to Manchester The train ftom Aberdeen or Dundee to Manchester involves changes the total time taken about six hours , not thought through a silly imposition and does it reduce or increase the journey footprint a 30 minute trip verdus a six hour trip looks like a green party influence to me.
LikeLike
Liar.
https://www.easyjet.com/en/cheap-flights/edinburgh/Birmingham
LikeLiked by 2 people
i am all for tackling global warming it is global warming not climate change , climate change sounds just like the four seasons summer winter spring autumn but global warming makes you peek at the weather map more often then expand it and the view then clarifies the problem , the earths waist band is glaringly red with temperatures above 40c and the red waist band is expanding watch out this summer.In my opinion we have people in politics not qualified to make the decisions they are making
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem with ‘global warming’ is that people do not equate it to dangerous high temps in the northern hemisphere where it’s damn cold most of the year like now in Edinburgh where we seem again about month behind in weather..so climate change can be more effective in making the point, it’s about the whole of the earth’s climate. Maybe it could be called global climate change, or just, human induced climate catastrophe, HICC, yeah that sounds better.. 🙂
LikeLike
Political games and greed are the bane of the UK – Where else would carbon trading be dreamt up as a solution to global warming, or grid bottlenecks anyone with a half a brain could see coming not be planned out, or decimal points of reduction targets prompt hysterics in the media ?
Having already managed to get to 20% of original gas consumption through simple and cheap insulation, and long since halved electrical consumption, it isn’t difficult to figure out why London is so against it, it’s all down to greed – Treasury revenues and shareholder profits matter more to the UK government than addressing the issues, because the consumer has no choice but to pay.
Chris Packham got it in one with “OUR GOVERNMENT’S POLICIES.. ARE NOT ONLY COOKING THE PLANET, THEY ARE JUSTIFYING THAT BY COOKING THE BOOKS”.
LikeLike
Scotland only missed targets by a few %. What is wrong with realistic targets. Scotlands covered with coal. CCS facilities in the North Sea. Westminster reneged on planned CCS project Gas at Peterhead and coal at Longannet in Fife. Scotland could have led the world in technology. Aided by oil & gas technology.
Scotland leads the way in renewables. Wind, wave, water and solar. Produces £Billions of renewable energy. Westminster spends £13Billion a year decommissioning nuclear
LikeLike
Westminster wasted £Billions on HS2. Instead of improving railways in the north and Scotland. Investment in the north and Scotland would have reduced journey times throughout Britain. Less air travel. Journeys in the North take twice as long as in the South. Historical lack of investment by Westminster.
LikeLike
The BBC News website has just published (AM, 3 May) an article under this headline: ‘Government defeated in High Court over climate plans’. Reuters online is arguably using a more informative headline: ‘UK’s new climate action plan unlawful due to delivery risk, High Court rules’.
The Reuter’s article adds: ‘The court’s judgment – that carbon budgets set by the government in 2023 to meet the UK’s target of net zero emissions by 2050 were SET WITHOUT EVIDENCE THEY COULD BE ACHIEVED – means Britain will have to submit a new plan for a second time.’ (my emphasis)
‘Judge Clive Sheldon upheld four out of five grounds of their legal challenge in a written ruling that Katie de Kauwe, a lawyer with Friends of the Earth, described as “another embarrassing defeat for the government and its reckless and inadequate climate plans”.’
(https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-new-climate-action-plan-unlawful-londons-high-court-rules-2024-05-03/ )
Back to the BBC piece and it’s ‘mild’ reporting : ‘The government has been defeated in court – for a second time – FOR NOT DOING ENOUGH to meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.’ (That’s the Westminster government – for the avoidance of doubt!) Compare the BBC’s ‘NOT DOING ENOUGH’ WITH Reuter’s ‘SET WITHOUT EVIDENCE THEY COULD BE ACHIEVED’!
The BBC does report: ‘In his judgement, Mr Justice Sheldon said: “It is NOT POSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN from the materials presented to the Secretary of State WHICH OF THE PROPOSALS AND POLICIES WOULD NOT BE DELIVERED AT ALL, OR IN FULL.”’ (My emphasis)
Does that mean the Westminster government’s plan was ’beyond credible’ – to use the rhetorical flourish previously deployed by Chris Stark, CEO of the Climate Change Committee when referring to Scotland?
We also learn: ‘The government had previously been warned that the plan was not sufficient by its own climate watchdog. When the new plan was published in March 2023 the UK Climate Change Committee (UKCCC) said IT WAS EVEN LESS CONFIDENT that the government could achieve its climate goals than before it published the plan.’
Is that the same as saying that the Westminster government’s plan continued to remain ’beyond credible’?
The BBC article also has this: ‘The UK has a target to reduce its emissions by 78% by 2035 against 1990 levels. But THE UKCCC ESTIMATED THE GOVERNMENT PLAN WOULD ONLY DELIVER A FIFTH OF THE EMISSIONS CUTS NEEDED IN THE COMING DECADE. It said of the plan published in 2023: “Despite over 3,000 pages of new detail, [our] confidence in the UK meeting its goals from 2030 onwards is NOW MARKEDLY LESS than it was in our previous assessment a year ago.” In particular the committee criticised the government’s failure to support clean energy and its support for new fossil fuel projects.’
On 18 April 2024 the BBC News website had this headline on Scotland: ‘Scrapped climate target is global embarrassment – charities’ and reported this:
‘Douglas Lumsden, Scottish Conservative net zero spokesperson, said the decision was an “abject humiliation” for the government. He added: “For all the boasting about their supposed environmental credentials, the reality is a succession of missed targets – and being forced to throw in the towel on this flagship pledge represents the biggest failure of the lot.”
No one expects the ‘concerned’ Tory, Mr Lumsden to acknowledge what has just happened in the High Court to the Westminster government over its climate plans. However, it will be ‘interesting’ to see if the other Unionist parties – the ones that recently berated the Scottish Government, amplified by the BBC, over the re-setting of climate plans following the advice of the Climate Change Committee – will have anything to say about the outcome of this court case in England.
To repeat Mr Justice Sheldon judgement: “It is NOT POSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN from the materials presented to the Secretary of State WHICH OF THE PROPOSALS AND POLICIES WOULD NOT BE DELIVERED AT ALL, OR IN FULL.”
LikeLike