end of their lives. There are a number of options that could be cost-effective there perhaps. Those are practical issues for the 2020s. At the moment, I do not see what the answer is on decarbonising heat, for instance, is not entirely clear. There are a number of runners and riders and we are doing a lot of research on that at the moment. It is a little bit the same with CCS. We do not really know what the cost-effectiveness of it will be or what future carbon price might be and whether that might be enough to get some of it going or not. I put the emphasis a bit on what we know is going to be cost-effective in 2020s, trying to maximise that. I think that we would probably take a different slant on that. I would not say that we would disagree necessarily, but I think that the thing that the CCC report brings is the need to go to the big things that you can change more and to go to those quickly. That is the difference in going from a 80 per cent target to a net zero target. I would say that the emphasis now has to be on moving all of the potential solutions ahead and then seeing how they can apply in different circumstances for different uses of energy. We would see one of the messages from the CCC report that was quite unequivocal on this is that carbon capture and storage is not an option. It is an essential. We still would see it as one that has strong potential in a lot of areas, the first of which being industrial uses of heat and use in industrial sectors. We think that it probably has applications in several other energy uses. We will not find that out until we develop a programme on that and until that programme is developed at scale. I also would caution against the idea that there is a fixed pot of money. If we have the mentality that there is only so much to go around, we are not going to achieve net zero. The CCC report was pretty unequivocal about that and pretty frank about the costs that are involved. 1 to 2 per cent of GDP, whatever, whether that is Scotland's GDP or the rest of the UK, are not small sums. That has got to be recognised as part of this process. I am guessing that Stewart has a particular constituency issue around CCS. I wanted to come back to the very first remarks that Angus McRow made. To try and tease out his antipathy to CCS. I know of six technologies, which means that there is at least 50. In particular, the differentiation between pre-combustion and post-combustion, and our retrofitting old kit with post-combustion, which is clearly quite expensive and with a limited period in which you get your capital back, and pre-combustion, where you are essentially going to be focusing on building totally new facilities, where the efficiencies and everything are in control, and furthermore post-combustion, you have got Taylor. It is a one-off build each time. Where your comments addressed both those, because it does strike me that the pre-combustion new build approach leads to the prospect of economies of scale and redeployment of technologies. It was said that there are 20 CCS projects. I know of 18 in China alone, although only two of them are big and 16 of them are kind of trial, little ones. Were you making that differentiation or were you just being broad brush? Do not touch. So there is not any antipathy, is the first thing. It is just observation in terms of what I see. Our clients are the biggest players in energy worldwide, from the traditional side and the new side, if you like. CCS, as you say, there are pilot projects going on. There are quite a few things happening in China, some interesting things happening on industrial CCS. In terms of the technologies actually moving forward and becoming closer to being rolled out on a sort of wide scale anywhere, I do not really think that we are any further forward than we were 10 years ago. Maybe that will change in the 2020s, I do not know. Is that because the funding was withdrawn from the carbon capture and storage, you know, from the UK Government took that funding away? So, for example, in Stuart's constituency that Peterhead was involved in that programme. So, you know, I cannot remember how long ago that was. Five years? Five years. So, you know, I guess that if there is that consistency of funding, what you have said is that there is not much movement in 10 years, that might not be in the case. Maybe there needs to be the consistency in funding and then we might be able to address that. So, I think that policy is obviously part of the answer and in the UK there were setbacks with the programme being taken away. There is also around the world that have been some CCS projects that have not gone well and have gone way over budget and have rather sort of burned a few fingers. Do you forgive me? I just want to get back to the core of the question that I am trying to get the answer to. Are you seeing a difference in your economic analysis, because that is what your skill is, between the retrofitting CCS and new build or not? Or is there simply not enough information and analysis to give a meaningful answer? Well, I think that CCS becomes a serious option if we get a carbon price that is high enough, particularly one on a sort of wide scale internationally. The sort of signs of that happening are not good, to be honest, to mean okay, the EUE test carbon price is higher than it was, but it is still significantly below where it would need to be to make CCS a practical proposition whether it is pre-combustion or post-combustion. Unless that changes, we see the sort of advance of the technologies that are showing rapid reductions in cost and continue to do so as something that is going to be much more a feature of the 2020s than CCS, probably. Unless we get such a climate emergency that governments completely change the policies and increase very high carbon prices and all the rest of it. That leads us on to what we are talking about, the business positives that are out there, the wins that there is for the Scottish economy and all the sectors that you are all representing. There are opportunities there. I do not know whether we want to open that up, because it seems to me that we are talking off a lot of challenges. Of course it is a challenge, but there is also opportunity there as well. The necessity is indeed the mother of invention. Does anyone want to talk about what you think might be the opportunities for your area? Scotland may be to be—we have already talked about what we have got in a natural environment. Building on what I said earlier on the survey of the suppliers, another result from it was that they all were already planning for growth, or at least they had a plan in the drawer that they could pull out once the button is pressed on setting clear targets and policies. That is across the board, that is heating, installers, energy efficiency, insulation, delivery agents. They are ready to go and they are projecting significant huge growth and export potential for their businesses, which is very positive. Some of the challenges that can be turned into positives is that there are still some gaps in certain geographies in Scotland where skills need to be developed. There is a need for further apprenticeships. There is a need to bring more young people into the industry. There is an opportunity there for growth that could be supported through apprenticeships, training, skills development colleges and so on. That could be again accelerated. The good news is that they know that the market is already growing because customers are telling them—now customers are coming to them saying, I want a heat pump. Instead of saying, I want heat and give me a boiler, people know that they have seen one, they have friends that have one, that like them, so the market is shifting and attitudes are shifting. People are now—there is a recent survey that is due to be published soon from Citizens Advice Scotland that is showing that people are in favour of standards, energy performance standards, being regulated for housing. Some 62 per cent were in favour and their main reason was for the environment. That shows a shift in attitudes because other research that they have done a couple of years ago was a bit more cautious. We have an opportunity here to not only win the jobs but to move with this growing interest and concern that we have and turn it into those opportunities for emissions reductions and jobs and all those other benefits. Perhaps following up on the point about carbon capture and storage, we are working around understanding some of those economic arguments and some of the economic challenges that will be faced recognising that this is clearly a key component of our meeting these new and critical targets. We are working with both the production or customer end, if you will, whichever way you want to describe at the industrial biotechnology that needs to go to the communities, the energy intensive companies in Grainsmouth, for example, or in Teeside in the north of England and the identified clusters, and also with the likes of the oil and gas industry and the oil and gas authority as part of the decommissioning of offshore infrastructure, whether there is a repurposing of offshore infrastructure that can be done in the project of St Fergus is a good example. There is no question with the industry leadership that we were discussing with that the withdrawal of funding previously has induced a certain amount of skepticism about the commitment to doing this, but there is also a recognition that, as major corporate global companies, they are going to have to address this challenge. If we have the potential for infrastructure here, then we can do that work. There are pilot projects under way. It is the UK as well as the Scottish Government level and the European level as well. We have engaged with other countries on the other side of the North Sea and around the North Sea as well to understand the projects that they are working on, to try to bring all of that together, because we are going to have to address it at that sort of scale. There are big opportunities that are undoubtedly the big challenges, and the economics of it will need a lot of work, as will the incentivising, then, of how are you going to make producers recognise that this is a key part of decarbonising their process. It all needs to join up. At the moment, there are a number of different pieces of the picture being assembled and looked at, but it is to do in part that economic analysis as well, because we do recognise that it is going to have to be proven how it will work and will need public as well as private engagement and incentivisation to make it work. However, there is big opportunity in Scotland just now. There is a big opportunity within the North Sea Basin. There are also big opportunities because we have some very major energy-intensive companies who are important to the economy of the country. As part of the work that we are doing with the oil and gas sector, not just the decommissioning of technology, but the diversification of the industry base, there is some exceptional technology in there already, which can be applied across a range of other areas of technology in other sectors, but part of it will be addressing the opportunity and challenge around how we move to carbon capture use as well. That is a separate element to a certain extent of the industrial biotechnology piece, but also the storage aspect of it as well. In terms of the positives, we see huge positives in pursuing the net zero goal. At the moment, the renewable electricity sector already employs 16,000 people in Scotland and generates £5.5 billion in revenue. As we increase the amount of renewable electricity that we are generating in this country, we see that job number and that revenue going up. It is very important to bear in mind that a lot of those jobs are in remote and rural areas where they provide high-quality long-term employment in areas where there are a few other opportunities. Picking up on Elizabeth's point, we are very keen to see young people coming into our industry and we will actually be holding our Young People's Green Energy Awards on Thursday night to celebrate the level of skill and expertise that is entering our industry from extremely passionate young people. We see a very positive future. We also found in a recent survey that our members are already exporting expertise and knowledge to 73 different countries around the world. When we say that we are looking at a target of making a Scotland world leader in renewable energy, it is not just about meeting our own energy needs, it is also about Scotland becoming this beacon in the world of expertise and knowledge and making us the country that you come to if you want to do a renewable energy revolution of your own. John wants to come in briefly. Can I just ask him about the manufacturing opportunities? As far as they seem to have passed us by, we would like to capture some of those as well. This is something that we are extremely keen on. Our members have already met—if you bear with me, I will just check the dates for you.  I have already met to talk about how we make the most of the industrial opportunities that we have with the work that we have done with our members looking into the lifetime of income generation over onshore and offshore wind. What we are finding is that there is between 50 and 65 per cent domestic content, so that is jobs and work that are going to domestic companies. We do find that, when it comes to the big infrastructure projects, Scotland is not competing on the world scale like we would like to see it do. This is a lot to do with a long-term underinvestment in infrastructure that has been UK-wide. As we say, our members are working very hard to see how we could change that because we do not just want to compete on the knowledge and expertise side, we would like to see Scotland competing across the board on a global scale. While we might be playing catch-up in that regard, is there still an opportunity in your view for Scotland to do so? We work on climate change. We are always optimists on those things. Yes, there are opportunities with appropriate investment. It could be done, but the key will be the appropriate investment and how the money is found to do that. Mark Ruskell, on that theme— On reading the Scottish Renewable Submission, you suggested a clean power plan. I was just wondering if that was something that other stakeholders around the table were backing and how that might differ from what we have at the moment, which is obviously a mixture of devolved and reserved responsibilities and an energy strategy for Scotland. Is the idea of a clean power plan something that builds on that, or develops it, in which case, where should we be going next? What we are calling for with the clean energy plan is that we need to look very carefully at the science of what has come out of the CCC report about how many gigawatts of electricity we need to be generating and what the technology mix across that might be, how much do we expect to generate onshore, how much offshore. Then, working back from that, we need to look both at our policies and our planning. If we know how much energy we need to generate onshore, how much of that can we generate from repowering our existing wind farms, how many more new wind farms or other technologies would we need to roll out onshore to meet that target? How many shallow bottom and other sites will we need offshore to be able to meet that? Instead of doing what we have done at the moment, which is where can we find a site and how much electricity can we generate out of it? We look at how much electricity do we need and then how do we meet that target. Is that different to what we have within the energy strategy at the moment? Is it more of an approach rather than a natural plan? It is more of a refinement. Now we are looking at a new climate change target and a new goal and a climate emergency. We need to revisit that just to make sure that we are actually going to be able to hit the targets that we are setting for ourselves. The market has to change because the cost of electricity versus something like if you are looking at heating your home, your consumer is not going to go with electricity over gas to heat their home at the moment. Of course, we have also got the targets about electrification of vehicles and that is going to be a huge demand for electricity. How can we make that cost effective that electricity is not seen as the most expensive option for everything? That is going to be a key challenge in the just transition and we do not hide from that fact. As we have already said, we have heard that the cost of electric vehicles is likely to come down to make them more attractive. There are also other advantages to having electric vehicles in that they are battery storage. One of the key problems that we have on our transition to a renewable energy system is storing renewable energy can be a challenge, unlike coal, gas, oil, which can be stored in their native form before converting into electricity. We see that grid services are probably going to come into the mix as well as how this works and smart technology will be very important about people being able to draw electricity when it is that it is cheapest and put it back into the grid when it is that they can make the most out of it. Those will be key parts of the transition. In fact, that leads seamlessly on to my question for all the panel members about how they see with the 1.5, which is what we are focusing on today, obviously. I know that someone wants to intervene, never mind. It is very important that we hear from everybody on this committee about workers, businesses and communities. Everyone will be affected by moving to net zero by 2045. I value comments from people. For instance, we have already highlighted that the positive impact sector can have to supporting the transition. I very much hope and expect that from the perspective of your sector will be a just transition as well. It would be helpful to hear from everybody who has not yet made that contribution what that will be. I think that you are right to say that, from the question, you have to focus on the opportunity that comes from this activity. The flip side of the cost is the opportunity and investment that it will bring. Clearly, whatever the amounts involved, there is going to be a significant amount of that that will go to offshore investment. Whether that is offshore wind, CCS or other technologies, that is obviously a real advantage of the Scottish economy to have that expertise from a range of sectors. There are certainly some transferable skills that go from across different sectors, whether you are thinking in terms of project management, whether you are thinking in terms of safety. All of those are core competences, certainly of our sector and others too. Developing that as a result of additional investment has got to be beneficial. We are seeing that already particularly in our supply chain, having clients both in the oil and gas sector and in the renewable sector. Also, to a certain extent, companies investing across the different sectors. The floating offshore wind farm was developed by Equinol, which is one of our members, using their offshore expertise. I think that there is definitely a certain synergy and a locational benefit across, up and down and all the sea that will result from the transition. That has a regional locational element to it, which is advantageous across the board and different poles of development to the ones that you typically get. There are definitely some regional development benefits to come out of the transition process. Is it possible for you to tell the committee if your members, in view of 1.5, have shifted views in terms of where finance should be going in terms of fossil fuel and the transition itself? That is possibly something that I will get back to you on. We have a lot of members and they have different strategies and so on, but you will have seen in the press that certain companies adopting resolutions from their shareholders who have an important voice. That is a good reason not to divest from energy companies, by the way. This is an area where companies are certainly thinking very carefully in response to how they develop their overall strategies. They take this very seriously. Will that be valuable if you can get back to us then? Thank you. At NFU Scotland, we view the concept of just transition as extremely important. Partly that is because of some of the things that are proposed in terms of the potential impact on the industry. If we look at what the Committee on Climate Change proposed for agriculture, we see it in three bits, if you like. The industry has to adopt all the mitigation measures to reduce emissions. That is possible. There are also recommendations around dietary change, so that is a reduction in the consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by 20 per cent. That is a conservative estimate. Some will go much further. The thinking is that that reduction in consumption will mean that there is an intensification with a shift towards pigs and poultry, and that frees up land for land use change. You would have a 20 per cent shift from agricultural land into another use. The dietary change, in particular, potentially brings a quite big challenge to the industry now. If you think about what the contribution is to the agricultural output at the moment from beef, sheep and milk, you get to about 45 per cent of agricultural output. If you take a 20 per cent reduction, it starts to have a big impact. Some people say that there is accommodation there, but I think that we look at it from the perspective of our members. When you think about it from the perspective of individual businesses, you have lots of agricultural businesses that are not huge. They are all a predominance of SMEs. There is a fairly high degree of reliance on going farm support. If you start changing income, you start to put those businesses under greater and greater pressure. You start to get to a situation where you could think that it would not be beyond the realms of possibility where quite a lot of businesses would go out of business. That is people losing their livelihood, essentially losing their jobs. Some of the scenarios for dietary change are talking about 50 per cent reduction in consumption of beef, lamb and dairy. If you think about what that would mean in terms of those sectors, at the moment there are 67,000 people employed in agriculture. If you are going to reduce the consumption of particular products that are the mainstay of Scottish agriculture, that is a lot of people's jobs, potentially at risk. There are issues around dietary change. Clearly, we are not in the realms of determining that people have to do one thing or another and that industry has to adapt. There are opportunities here. According to the previous question, there are opportunities around focusing on supporting Scottish farmers and on focusing on quality. A great deal of care is required, but that is where just transition comes in. Ultimately, the changes that we are potentially looking at mean that people's livelihoods and jobs are at risk. There are consequences, potentially, of having to import more food, which is going to have an impact on our carbon footprint as a country, if we are not producing food locally and there is still a demand for, for example, certain proteins. Exactly. We do not want to get into a situation where we move down a direction of travel that has an impact on the industry in terms of reducing production if, at the same time, there is a demand that we are just importing products from elsewhere, because all that we are doing there is exporting our emissions. What would you like to see in relation to land use and particularly agriculture in terms of the support through a just transition or a just transition commission for people who contribute to things the way—as there is a policy change—what would you like to see happen? I think at the moment where we are is actually we don't have a very sophisticated understanding of the potential way that things could play out. There's quite a blunt narrative and this is developed in the last few years at an international level, which is focused on livestock are bad for the climate. If you eat less meat, then you're making contribution. That's a very generalised approach and understanding. It seems to just keep being perpetuated, and I think what we would like to see is much greater sophistication of analysis of, well, if you were to do this, then what are the options for change? In Scotland, many people on the ground have no other option, because the land is not capable of doing many other things, agriculturally. How would that play out and enable us to get into a position of knowing what we would need to do to support the industry? At the moment, I don't think that we are in that place. Colin Campbell Ben, there is a great need for a just transition in relation to the land use change. We clearly need land use change to have the transformative shift that we require to meet the climate change targets. However, land is something that takes a long time to develop to its full productivity and to maintain it that way. Livestock has clearly learned a lot of pressure, particularly from trees, but there is transition land uses that we could look at. Look at agroforestry, where you have space trees, sheep can graze in between. There's actually benefit to the sheep in terms of the energetics, because they have shelter in the spring and the autumn time. The better energetic balance obviously reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The big issue is about how do farmers transition to being foresters? If you go to other countries such as Sweden, there are farmers during the spring, summer and autumn, and there are foresters in the winter time. However, we train people to be farmers or foresters. We don't train people to be land use managers. There's a lot of transition that we need to do around the culture and the methods and skills and knowledge that people need to have transition-type land uses in the future. The losses of jobs and agriculture are also quite serious for managing our landscapes. Farmers are not just farmers, they actually manage our landscapes and the ecosystem services that we get from our land. We need to think very carefully about the consequences of any land abandonment, for example, that might occur. There's a huge topic in terms of the just transition for the agricultural sector in terms of land use. I'll connect back to the question about economy and jobs. Obviously, I outlined the opportunities that we have if we invest in them in buses, trains and ferries. We need to look at the whole system, and that is across everything. For example, we need to be thinking about in the economy how we work, where we work and working to think about avoid, shift and improve the forms of travel that we need. For example, in rail, we think about modal shift from car to bus and rail and active travel, but actually it may be from air to rail as well, and that might be a more efficient way of working. Thinking not just about the jobs within the sector, which are hugely important and there's an opportunity there, but about how the whole economy functions in terms of its efficiencies, its resilience, there's going to be issues in terms of infrastructure and our wellbeing as well. This is where the transition needs to be just in terms of jobs, in terms of the economy, but for everyone we keep hearing the words enabling, and in the last session people were talking about people knowing what's right for their place, and sometimes we think just in big chunks. Actually there's lots of little chunks and never has there been an appetite for mobilising people to be engaged and to change their behaviour to make a difference than ever before. So there's real opportunities in travel, for example, lots of the journeys that we make are very little journeys and actually we could all be making huge differences in them. We see that cutting across the sector and if we can enable people to make those changes and to be part of the solution as a nation, put it all on the table and figure out what we need to do collectively, then that is good for our public health as well. People in the previous session were talking about folk feeling overwhelmed and daunted by the challenge here, but actually what we know and public health consultants will tell you is that once people feel that there's something to buy into, that they can be part of the solution, then that's a really compelling vision to go for in something that can motivate and make people feel better, feel happier and healthier. Whether it's those who are elderly or the children and the young people who are engaged in this debate, often there at the margins of these services, investing in our bus system would hugely help the 14-year-old who might like to go from our rural community to another part of the community to do a Saturday job, but she can't because there's no bus that runs that day or the elderly folk who depend upon that connectivity to get out and about and be functioning, that will invest in the local economy but it'll also have wide-reaching benefits. We know that communities that are better connected, people feel that there's less need, they can be at their home longer, so there's a reduction in the costs on health and social care for example, so there's a resilience there which we can be building within our community and for me and Transform was recognising that there's where we miss things like active travel and those opportunities for that kind of compelling vision. The UK advice was more about the big chunks and carbon captains and storage rather than all the little chunks which are going to make such a huge difference. You raised an important issue which I guess leads into quite a lot of sectors is that there's small easy wins based on a change in perception. One thing you've mentioned is that people actually want to do things but there's little things standing in their way, so you're talking about active travel, safety is an issue. I want to bring in Mark Simpson because I'm aware of the fact that freight isn't just on roads, it's on rail as well. Is there not an easy win there in that rail freight is underused? To be blunt, no, because 90 per cent of freight is gone by road, is road travel, you're not going to change that at all. At its best, you'll get about 5 per cent of the trucks off the road on to rail. The reason being, rail is suitable for things like whisky, if you get the gauge right, which isn't the case across all of Scotland's network, timber, things like that, so it's bulk goods. The other thing to think about is to maybe give you some figures to help build the picture. The FT estimates that if you look at a town with a population of about 100,000 people in it, you're moving an average of 4,500 tonnes of good every day. If you break that down, that's 187 tonnes being picked up every hour or dropped off within the city. If you take Glasgow or Edinburgh first, we're looking at around about 21,600 tonnes a day, which is 900 tonnes an hour. If you look at the broad spectrum, it's important to point out that that's got nothing to do with vans, this is all the trucks, so the heavier end. If you average that out at, say, 10 tonnes as a payload, to give you an example, a 24-ton truck only has a 10-ton payload. It can't carry 24 tonnes, so that's an average of 90 HDVs that are in the city every hour. It's nothing to do with parcel delivery. It's everything else. Parcel delivery is a really, really small element of it, and I think that's where people think freight is just parcels being delivered from Amazon. That's not what it is. It's everything else. It's the bricks, it's the wood, it's the coffee, it's the milk, it's the clothes, it's absolutely everything. I think that thinking about that amount of freight going into simply the city of Edinburgh, you're not going to shift that all into a train. The way to think about it is that the city is a consumer, so the city has all sorts of different demands for all sorts of different products to be brought into the city at different times of the day. It massively changes when things like the festival happen. The uplift is huge because of the number of extra people that are in the city, and it's about absolutely where it's possible to put some freight on trains, and we would absolutely support that, and we have members that are actively looking at that. There are some constraints with regards weight, because once it gets to its destination, it inevitably has to go by road to the final mile that we talk about, and it's about making it easy for that container to come off the back of a train onto the back of a truck and move that to its final destination, which ultimately would be a distribution centre. There's an element that can be done, but we need to be very cautious about the fact that our road infrastructure is vital to our economy and the way that we move goods around this country is by road. There are definitely limited opportunities, but it's about making that infrastructure as reliable as possible and putting the best cleanest vehicles on it. Is there any maritime opportunities when much of the food and other products arrive by containers? That is being explored. We had a consultation with a company recently that is re-opening the Recith to Holland route. The key thing for me when I heard that presentation was that it's got 10 times the capacity. The reason why the Recith to Africa didn't work was because we couldn't get enough trucks on it. I think that it could only take seven or eight trucks at a time. You're now looking at up to 100 trucks could go on that one crossing, so if it's not a time-sensitive product, absolutely no problem at all. Something like fishing, which should be up in Mr Stevenson's constituency, is all about just in time. It's got to get there quickly, so there's no other option. You've got to take it by road south as quickly as you possibly can and sell it up to its marketplace. Putting that on a ship won't work. Putting whisky on a ship, getting it across to America or wherever, absolutely works. I'd ask you, from the perspective of your organisation, you're looking at the model that has been raised in this committee previously about consolidation hubs outside cities and then smaller, possibly electric vehicles going into the cities themselves, which has been funded by EU money, which I hardly dare mention today, but has. Have you got comments on that? I think that an urban consolidation centre will work in some scenarios, but you need to be quite clear about what it is that an urban consolidation centre is. Freight and logistics by its very definition is all about efficiency and the freight is already consolidated onto the back of the biggest truck so that it can make one journey to do all the deliveries, so if you add that additional link into the supply chain, there's ultimately additional costs. I absolutely foresee no problem with parcels to a point with probably working urban consolidation and absolutely put them on the back of an electric van. But be aware that, as I said earlier, a 24-ton truck can carry 10 tonnes. If you replace that with vans, you need 10 vans to then go into the city. The biggest climate problem is congestion as far as transport is concerned. The stop-start nature and what you want is a vehicle to be able to run at a pace slow and steady through the city, get to its point, drop off and move on. That's not the same argument, is it? It's not, but I think that there are other emissions apart from just tailpipes. Of the tyres? Yes, okay. With the tyres and brakes and things like that. Have that discussion at a later date? I just wondered, since we're talking about transport, I wondered to what extent we can get a benefit by extending the life of our equipment because there's a big embedded carbon cost in building a lorry, building a truck and so on and so forth. I just think of my personal experience, where I now run an eight-year-old car, which in its life has never broken down. My depreciation is a... You realise that? Sorry? You've just jinxed that, you realise that? Well, no, no, no, no, no. Depreciation is £1,000 a year. In 2005, my depreciation was £5,000 a year. But more to the point that tells you something about the carbon footprint and using things. It is directed at the FTA, but it's a much more general question about using things for longer to make the embedded carbon be distributed over more effort and more benefit. The members of the FTA will have different uses for different types of vehicles, and it will very much depend on the mileage that the vehicle is doing and what terrain it is doing it alone. If it's doing milk runs, what we call milk runs, so short, regular journeys, absolutely you will get a longer life out of the vehicle. The industry as a whole is moving very much towards Euro 6. We estimate by 2020 about 50 per cent of vehicles will be on Euro 6, which is the cleanest option there is for diesel. Absolutely, we're now looking at the industry, we're looking at alternative fuel options, but there is no one stand-out option for that yet, so absolutely I would agree with Mr Stevenson that once we understand what that option is and understand the life span of a vehicle, because obviously with all organisations that run heavy goods procurement and life of vehicle is very, very important and ultimately what they will get when they sell that vehicle on. I think it's important to realise that unless you now have a Euro 5 vehicle, you're going to get a lot less money for that because nobody's going to want to buy it from you, so it's all about Euro 6. I was just going to quickly say, I think this is one area for example where there's a huge win to make, but we need to look creatively at what all the options are. There's not going to be one size that fits everything, so we need to look creatively at it and also we can look to elsewhere, so in the Netherlands for example they're putting together, I think, in statute right now, a zero emissions network for freight and looking at what the potential is there, so we can provide more information on that if that's of interest to the committee. Yes, on the question about using things longer, there's an interesting example being done in Remfrewshire Council where they are combining budgets of say the retrofit build and maintenance and repair and they're looking at their housing stock and actually finding that it will be more cost effective to do a deep retrofit, so bringing these buildings as far up to net zero as they can now and rather than tearing them down, looking for a new land, planning permission, you know, all of that entails let alone the embodied carbon emissions that's lost and that's the route they're going to take because they've decided that that is actually cost effective over the longer term and so that's an example of how you can take that approach, you know, by using a deep retrofit and if I can segue on to the quick wins, I think, you know, this is so important in terms of this state, you know, we are in a state of climate emergency and you can use the quick wins to give comfort, give signals to say, yes, we are, you know, we're on this, there are some no-brainers that we can get on with, but at the same time, you know, we're all going to work together on longer term plans, longer term strategy and there, I'm sure, all of us could come up with, you know, a little top three of quick wins that could be done today, put in place today and send those signals like, you know, with housing, new build regulations. They're already saying, Philip Hammond is already saying that for the rest of the UK, are we going to be left behind? You know, why should we be connecting new homes to the gas grid? And, you know, that's just one example. Why are we funding replacement oil and LPG boilers for the fuel poor? We should be putting them on to renewable heat and accepting that there's going to be an additional, there will be an additional cost involved. And repeat what I've said before, when your engineer, nearest engineer, is more than two hours travel away, there's a huge disincentive to change your technology, because we were going to do it until we discovered that. So, there may be examples, but I do think our government programmes, government money, should be investing in low-carbon technologies and not perpetuating technologies that we know are yesterdays. So, there are those examples of some quick wins and a quick win for yourselves, I believe, would be, as we have proposed, a target, putting in place a target in this bill of an EPCC, BANC by 2030 for the vast majority of homes. So, you know, if we're in an emergency, we should be, it should look like, not that we're all running around panicked, but it should look like there is considered action being taken to reverse or repurpose policies. We should be using discretionary funds to implement projects that we no need to go ahead or research. It should look like a full mobilisation effort. Yes, the climate change plan will be revised, but that's not enough in my view. We should really be treating this as an emergency and giving people that comfort and those signals to show, you know, this is now the direction of travel and it will be accelerating. So, get on board. Mark Ruskell. I think it's leading on from that. I'd appreciate quick views around the table about the kind of infrastructure that we need to deliver a low carbon economy. In particular, I go back to the previous panel where we talked about locking in high carbon emissions perhaps through the wrong type of infrastructure that's being invested in. So, I think, you know, we've heard an example perhaps there of, you know, private infrastructure, public infrastructure and housing, but that's a kind of national, adds up to a national infrastructure in a way, but are there other examples of where we should be investing differently or maybe we've got the balance right at the moment? I don't know. Anybody? Yes. On the key infrastructure that will really make a difference, Elizabeth has already touched on it, that heat networks are exceptionally common in Europe, particularly in places like Denmark. We need to be putting in place the planning policies now. We acknowledge that the new heat networks that go in will probably not be powered by renewable energy, they probably will be gas-powered, but once the network is in, retrospectively going back and changing the fuel source to a renewable source is much easier. If we wait until we've got the renewable source before we put in the heat networks, it will be too late. The other really important piece of infrastructure that we should consider is repowering the wind farms that we already have. A lot of the heavy lifting around them has been done, the grid connections have been put in, the substations have been put in, the access has been put into them. As a wind farm reaches the end of its operational life, which is around 20 to 25 years, you take the turbines down and repowering involves putting new, modern, more efficient ones up. The modern, more efficient turbines are generally taller than the ones that exist, so you will see them more, but you can put in fewer turbines and get out either the same amount of electricity or more from the same site. I'm picking up on the embodied carbon and recycling. What we're also seeing in Scotland is real pioneering work being done around how we now recycle the parts from our wind turbines, so again, the embodied energy that's being used in our low-carbon generating technologies is itself being decarbonised. For agricultural land use, there are a lot of new technologies that rely on having the internet of things available in all parts of the country at the right speeds. There's a lot of robotics, artificial intelligence methods that are coming along that will mean that our systems are more efficient and produce less greenhouse gas emissions, but that will depend on that wireless infrastructure being ready to use in many remote parts of the country. The other thing about the land use is the green infrastructure. I suspect that that's not what you're referring to, but we can think about our natural assets, about getting the green infrastructure right as well and the natural assets that are in that green infrastructure. One of the new ways that we're thinking about agriculture is how we redesign diversity back into the system. That means having multiple varieties of crops or different crops or intercropping, making sure that you've got weeds at the margins of the field that can attract the right pollinators and predators that prevent you from having to apply so much chemical herbicides, etc. There's a lot of ways that we can think about infrastructure and redesigning and putting diversity back into our green infrastructure is a big one. Jess Pepper? I've talked about the good stuff. A recent spice publication highlighted that, in terms of our pipeline spend, having reduced the amount that was being spent on high carbon infrastructure, the pipeline spend demonstrates that we're heading towards locking in more high carbon infrastructure into the future, which is a worrying trend. Clearly, we're in a climate emergency and we need to be reviewing that. I borrowed from a climate striker, I know a model of what the problem is on transport. Each one of those duplo blocks, if you're familiar, represents 1 million tonnes of carbon CO2 equivalent. The yellow blocks, the very bottom one, is all the public transport and bikes and trains and all. This top one is air, so welcome the decision on air passenger duty. The yellow is road traffic. One of the alarming things in drafting this was for me, and it was being brought to my attention by these strikers, that we are currently pulling down woodland and moving around high carbon soils and agricultural soils in order to build new roads. That's where the bulk of our investment has been going and that's where the bulk of our planning has been going. The roads that are being built sometimes are not even subject to an assessment on climate change and the impacts that, when you do your strategic environmental assessment generally, you scope in terms of climate or you rule in what's important to scope on and what's not important to scope on. The A9 dualling programme, for example, didn't scope on climate and that's going to target a lot of woodland, thousands of hectares and a lot of high carbon soils, peatlands, which are being moved around. In terms of what we need to reassess and reconsider in a climate emergency, our roadbuilding programme would be one of them. There's a great case for investing in repair and there's an important case in investing in what needs to be done for safety, but in terms of what we need to be thinking about as the whole system and how we make it accessible to everyone, electric vehicles, as I've said, will be part of the solution and we should definitely take the steer from the advice that we lock into statute, that ambition on transitioning to electric vehicles, but we do need to think carefully about what the whole system does for everyone because not everybody will have access to an electric vehicle or be able to invest in an electric vehicle. I think on infrastructure there are the issues that come up are kind of chicken and egg issues to some extent, so and that goes across a lot of different alternative technologies actually. So with electric vehicles you have the infrastructure of charging with use of hydrogen infrastructure to use for transport potentially, also converting the gas networks to use hydrogen or allowing different specifications of gas to be used in the network and finally on CCS. You're probably aware that there's a CCS advisory group sitting which will produce its report in July and interestingly there they envisage your kind of disaggregated model.  So there are these kind of infrastructure issues when when doing a modal shift or a structural shift that those are the sort of questions that go to this point of you know where are the dividing roles between the market and the government with all of this and so I think that's an important insight actually from again from the CCC report and all of the work that goes with energy transition in that the infrastructure side of things is the one and even down to kind of market design as well how they have electricity market functions that was all rehalled, overhauled as part of developing renewables you know other segments of the of the market you know might need to have that kind of those kind of changes as part of the policies that go with the setting of targets. Hydrogen has been mentioned a lot of times in passing and I guess that oil and gas industries maybe got a role to play if hydrogen is say the replacement fuel for say the gas grid or it's the replacement fuel for the UHTVs in the future. I wanted to ask a question one of the submissions that came in I think it's from Angus McRown he said hydrogen is potentially part of the answer on residential industrial heat and indeed in long haul heavy trucks but this is a bit highlighted but it would have to be produced using electrolysis not fossil fuel cracking could you explain why you say that? We come back to this CCS thing that I'm supposed to have. Is that the reason why because you don't think this CCS? Well if you're going to produce hydrogen by fossil means then you you have the co2 to deal with so either you just let it go or you have to store it but I'm slightly circumscribed in what I can say because we are literally about to publish a whole stream of stuff on hydrogen and and the sort of future economics of things like electrolysis and so on so I can't sort of leak that but yeah I mean I think electrolysis is interesting because I mean the two main ingredients of electrolysis are water and electricity and Scotland potentially is you know Saudi Arabia water and you know potentially plentiful supplies of renewable electricity which could be made reliable around the clock with batteries or by using hydrogen infrastructure itself so it's a potentially interesting area for Scotland I mean I'd sort of council a bit of caution that we don't we don't yet know exactly what's going to happen with electrolysis over the next 10 years and what people like us say about future costs will have some impact but I think it's an interesting area to watch. So there's a case of two different technologies whichever gets their first big the answer to hydrogen? Yeah without getting into the battle of the technologies but you can do steam methane reformation today and you and turn it into hydrogen you also obviously you then have to you know have a process for capturing the carbon and storing it which is is not an insignificant challenge but I think the those will go at different paths but again I would go back to my point is you know we don't have to choose today we actually have to try all of these things and get them off the ground at scale and then it will work itself out over time and then but the situation we are today is that if you want to develop that develop the hydrogen economy quickly it actually has to be off the back of methane and methane reformation because we don't have the we will in the future have reliable surpluses of renewable electricity with which to do electrolysis and that will definitely be needed but there's a sort of sequencing that you know we would envisage happening which probably has the methane reformation going first and then you have to take it from there but they're both challenging areas I would say so I wouldn't like to say which one is you know better or worse than the others but you know we're in a city with the the the imperative of getting to net zero means these all have to be tried and tried seriously I would say Angus MacDonald sorry Andy MacDonald Angus is over there Angus usually sits there so that's even more confusing so yeah I just is I'll pick up on that point first I mean we are obviously in the midst of that debate about electrolysis and steam methane recovery and which is longer term going to be the solution that we we get to for scale we do some economic we did some economic analysis within my team we do if we were a foresighting group and part of the reason that we're currently looking at extending the work that we're doing within hydrogen just now into heavy transport is because at the moment we feel that in scotland's case is about where we can do now in terms of scale if we get to a point where we're injecting hydrogen into the gas grid then the dynamics change the the economic exchange but for the moment the opportunity in scotland is around that you know there's heavy transport opportunities and because that's what we've got now and picking at will's point we need to be testing improving that now because it's going to be part of the solution wherever the fuel eventually comes from so we need to be doing that now to the broader error question about the the impact and how we avoid having some of the captures on your question mark the what some of the work that we're doing with a lot of partners in government in utilities community groups and others just now around local energy systems is partly looking to try and understand what the right solutions are for different places we did some work on typologies which looked at what an island community would do or need what would be important for a rural community that's off grid what an urban community or an industrial estate or an industrial complex might do the needs of those different areas are different and if we're looking just now at changing the way our energy system works it's an opportunity just now to try and capture those and find the best solutions for different communities and the best and most advantageous way of bringing a group of technologies together around that so it may not be about just the grid bringing electricity in anymore clearly isn't so if you look at some of the stuff in Orkney just now while they're piloting some of these projects using renewable electricity that's generated through emacs testing of marine devices using some of that through electrolysis to produce hydrogen which has been used in council vehicles looking at grid management across the islands looking at how the networks work across a group of islands all of those things are piloting for the future and we're trying to take some of that understanding and share it in other countries in Denmark and Canada and other places where they have similar communities just now to understand you know can we test those things further can we test those ideas out because that's part of the global solution but it's also part of a very local solution for those communities okay in the final 10 minutes we've got two members with questions can I ask Claudia and John to both ask your questions together and then we'll put it out to everyone and you can signal to me whether you want to answer Claudia thank you our convener has already highlighted the issues some around the opportunities in relation to net zero by 2045 and could I ask very specifically if any of the panel members want to make any comment on investment both in research but also or and also in in commercial companies and the public sector as well this might relate to pension funds and divestment and reinvestment in relation to the relationship that companies have with shareholders and how companies can actually affect change as well as the shareholders themselves and also finally what Mark Carney highlighted what seems a very long time ago now about stranded assets so I just wonder that this has obviously got to be a brief response but just any comments on five minutes please and John mine was a sort of big infrastructure product ties into what claudia said but mr mcrone talked about Saudi Arabia of water and self-evidently with water tables falling in england and groundwater level falling as well and reservoir levels falling should we is now the time for someone not so who would afford it but to be looking at a pipeline to export water from Scotland oh and I have to declare an interest in that regard as well I have a small company in that regard which is absolutely dormant I have to say but is that is that something that in a strategic sense for the whole of the United Kingdom is an opportunity and when it becomes a critical need it will be too late then to say oh I wish we'd done that 10 years ago whereas the length of time it takes for these kind of projects should we be thinking about that now would any of our guests like to take any of those questions and give our thoughts in the last few minutes nobody yes I'll go to me like Watson first I'm afraid I can't speak to the export of water the water and the electricity generally don't mix so well so it's not exporting water is not something my members do but picking up on the investment opportunities Scotland is regularly seen as one of the top countries in the world for renewable investments when you know we look at what's happening in offshore wind we are seeing billions invested in the north sea so yes there are amazing opportunities for investment and this again is one of the reasons why we are so welcoming of the net zero target and what we expect and hope will follow which is a very supportive policy environment because as I've already said around innovation the same is true for investment where their stability where there's an ambitious target investment will generally follow because people know that when they make an investment there's a long-term future for it so we are extremely optimistic about the investment. There's a concern obviously this week about bifap for instance I don't want to go into any details we haven't got long but I mean in terms of the big contracts for Scottish workers can you comment on that too? Yes as I alluded to earlier we had the offshore wind summit on the 2nd of May when a great number of our offshore wind members did actually meet with Mr Mackay and subsequently a letter was sent on the 16th of May to the economy energy and fair work committee setting out what we're looking to do on that. As I've already said our members really want to work with Scottish companies but they're stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment. Offshore developments are funded through the contracts for difference process out of Westminster which pushes for the lowest possible price which is again forces people to look globally for where they can find suppliers who can do that. What we want to see as I've already said is we want to see the Scottish infrastructure side of things being able to compete on a global market not just for the projects that we do in Scotland but for projects all the way around the world and as a set out in Mr Mackay's letter to the committee we have come up with a list of actions to be done that we hope would make that a reality. I'm just going to address the point about investment, divestment etc. We would not see things in such black and white terms in terms of energy production, investment, divestment. I think that we have to recognise that there are other energy policy goals around. Access to energy that's one of the UN sustainable development goals. We would argue that that has a value in its own right and we're not talking about black and white here when we're talking about where companies put their money. The other thing that we would say is that all companies are different, they all have their own strategies. Being involved in a company as a shareholder gives you the right to go along and ask about stranded assets and that kind of question. That's a value in retaining a stake in a company and that gives you a voice. We do not think that divesting from particular sectors or particular companies is a good idea unless for a commercial reason and your questions are not answered about their strategy then that's fine. Divesting from companies? I did use the word reinvestment as well. I'm not being defensive about that. No, I understand. The value that, as an institutional shareholder, that gives you the right to question, the strategy of that company, that's really valuable. If I was involved in such an exercise I would counsel against taking yourself out of the tent. You've got a voice as a shareholder and particularly as an institutional shareholder about those kind of commercial questions. Finally, on the investment side, as I alluded to earlier, the big changes that have happened will need to happen. There's a setting of the institutional framework around those that takes you from the example project to the first of the kind project at scale to the state of affairs where those are part of normality. That's where the Government and Policy role comes in and that's the role that Government's played in the renewable electricity sector. Those are the questions that then need to be asked when we get to the implementation of the policies that are there to deliver the targets and that's the important next step in all of this. My biggest concern regarding investment, particularly in EIIs, is trying to remain competitive in the UK. I think that there's been a big opportunity missed when looking just at territorial emissions. If we move to a consumption-based emissions system, you give your industry a little bit more certainty that you're keen to attract their investment while they decarbonise and not just all our carbon budgets at the moment could actually be met through deindustrialisation, which isn't good for the economy at all. If we move to a consumption-based emissions reporting, we might attract more investment in the UK and it would be interesting to see whether we could actually repatriate some of the industries that we might have lost and bring some more of those consumption emissions back under our control, which I think would be better for the environment, it would be great for the economy and it would send great signals to industry that we're wanted in the UK and in Scotland. That's a good point, by the way, but the way of bringing the pressure that investors are putting to bear on companies together with the opportunities for Scotland is I think that companies are really treating sustainability far more seriously than they ever have been up to now and we're seeing that with the work that we're doing and the sort of response to that and it's sort of going down the supply chain as well so it's not just sort of head office of Walmart or whatever it's everybody they deal with and so on and that's happening on a global basis and what Scotland can offer is very cheap renewable energy so if these companies are wanting to source 100% of their electricity from renewables by a particular date 2023 or whatever then the sort of cleanest way to do it and be sure that you're actually enabling new projects to be built is by signing power purchase agreements with new renewable energy projects and this could be onshore or offshore wind in Scotland so I think that there's a sort of opportunity there for Scotland to to sort of take advantage of its natural resources and become part of that. Landon Macdonald I'm sorry just a couple of relative small pieces of both jigsaws I guess we haven't been asked to help construct a pipeline yet but the response for a responsibility for our part of the hydro nation project at a Scottish level within Scottish enterprises within my team as well and we are seeing a lot of interest around technologies to do with improving water quality and developments which are exportable, tradable and are being taken to some parts of the world where they have a significant impact and the other was just from a public sector perspective around some of the investment some of the projects that we've worked on through and with communities and with some of the early stage innovative technologies have obviously been supported through the renewable energy investment fund and the now energy investment fund and through the Scottish Investment Bank and my colleagues there we're working with just now in terms of trying to make some some cases toward the the work of the new Scottish National Investment Bank which clearly may be at a significantly greater scale but within its low carbon mission which we hope it's going to be focused on we're looking at whether they they may be able to extend that reach into other areas with more capital. I keep a rapidly running out of time I want to take under initially very quickly and then Jess Peppern we're afraid we're going to have to round things up so Andrew Amidlis. Thank you it's just on the issue of investment and I hope I'm not too far off from the sort of the topic that you're intending I just wanted to make the point that there's various forms of investment needed specifically with regard to farming the first one with private investors and I'm talking about SMEs and clearly it's a different conversation but with SMEs they need clarity if they're going to invest in their businesses in the context of the policy context that they find themselves at the moment they need clarity and on the direction of travel now there are opportunities and they and people will be seeking to identify and sort of invest in those opportunities but they need sort of clear direction of travel so that they know where their businesses are expected to go that applies to in the food chain with people needing to invest in supporting the industry they need confidence that there's going to be an ongoing market and then finally public investment is critical especially and it relates back to the issue on public goods the role of the state against private investment the role of the state in the delivery of public goods is really critically important and investing in advice in sort of infrastructure within the industry it doesn't necessarily mean I'm not necessarily talking about just handing out money it's about helping people invest through soft loans things like that there's a whole range of things that are going to be done and just paper finally as quick as I can really just to go back to where we started with we need we know where we're wanting to go now and that's great but we need certainty in terms of how we're going to get there so that folk can invest in it and have confidence in it and can map out how they're going to contribute to that and that may mean that we may need something more than just policy because policy hasn't always worked in the past there may be things which could go into a statutory framework which is more about the house so the climate change plan was quite sectoral before actually if we could achieve something that gives the sectors the certainty they need but also achieve some level of integration then that would be because that's where you get the synergies and you know your soils are important but they're important across the board and all sorts of from different angles and it may be that we need somebody to champion that we maybe we need a climate commissioner or a commission to oversee and make those connections and encourage the sectors where there's a bit of sluggishness or there's a new creative connection to be made and be kind to Colin Campbell because you're from my neck and you wanted to come in briefly. I'll try and be as brief as I can but on the pipeline I can't answer the question fully but I can tell you there's about 160 billion cubic metres of rainfalls in Scotland but it varies and it can be 100 billion sometimes so there's a lot of variation so we need to be very careful about what we do with our water despite the fact that yesterday's rain was tomorrow's whisking and on funding in particular obviously the research is a vital part of our infrastructure and the science is a vital part of infrastructure and we have had a lot of cuts in our research over the last 10 years and it's austerity and not been in a protected budget but I'd like to think a climate crisis would mean more money for research going forward. Okay thank you very much for everyone for their time today that includes the committee's business in public today at its next meeting on the 4th of June the committee will be taking further evidence in relation to the Scottish Government budget and the committee will reconvene in private session at 2.30 this afternoon to consider the evidence that we heard in the bill this morning. The meeting is now suspended and I ask that the public gallery be cleared. Thank you very much to everyone.


This is stock number 11348. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Your new and used heavy-duty truck and RAM headquarters. Today we are checking out this super clean 2018 RAM 2500 Crew Cab Short Box Big Horn Edition. This vehicle has the 6.7 liter Cummins diesel. It has been fully-safetyed and inspected by our service shop has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off and This truck is 100% ready to go. Brilliant black crystal pearls. The color we shoot all of our videos in 1080p. 60 frames per second. So if you have HD capabilities on your computer tablet or smartphone device turn them on right now because it is definitely your best way to check out the quality and condition of the truck before seeing it in person. And if you'd like to check out all the photos on this truck in the upper right hand part of your screen is a link to our website. Click that and check us out there. This one comes with the polished aluminum 18 inch rims and it has mastercraft Corsair LT 305 70 R18 tires. These front tires look like they have probably about 70 to 80 percent of the tread left on them. It does have a leveling lift kit on here. I'd say it's probably about a two and a half inch lift kit. Frame and underbody is in very nice shape. This is a one owner out of New York. Headlight lenses are nice and clear. Factory fog lights and the front bumper is in excellent condition. No dents or dings on there. The hood is in very nice shape as well. No dents or dings on that. And you do get the chrome trimmed grille with the big horn package. Passengers side front fender. No dents or dings on there. And the passenger side rim. No scuffs or scrapes. As you go down this side of the truck, take note of how clean the body is, how reflective and mirror like that paint is. We take these HD videos so if you are far away or even if you're close by and just cannot make the trip down, you can still see the truck, hear the truck, and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at before you even get here. So that when you do get here, there's absolutely no surprises. And that's why we offer the Summit Auto Fastpass option in the upper right hand part of your screen. A link right to our website where you can apply for financing, get pre-approved, see a payment quote, even appraise a trade, all from the comfort of your own home. So when you get here, all you have to do is drive the truck, love it, you'll be all set to go. Back tires have just about as much tread as the front tires, not quite as much, but I'd still say probably 60 to 70%. Frame and underbody is in really nice condition and it's like that all the way underneath. Very little to no corrosion and it has all the remaining factory exhaust. All the lower rockers look really good on this truck as well. And as we come around to the back of the vehicle, you can see just how nice and clean that box side is. Rear bumper is in great shape, no major dents or dings on there. It does have the full towing package, which includes a receiver hitch four pin and seven pin wiring. The tailgate is in really nice condition as well. That is a locking tailgate. You do get a backup camera and then you get a spring and bed liner. Fifth wheel and goose neck prep package, seven pin wiring in the bed and then LED bed lighting. You can turn these LED bed lighting on, bed lights on with that button there. They started that in 2018 and you can see how nice that works. You can just press it again to turn it off. Tailgate shuts nice and solidly and as you go down the driver side, just as clean as that passenger side, has the nice mud flaps on it, which keeps your lower rockers looking good. No dents or dings on the box and for full disclosure, this back rim is in excellent shape as well. Down the rest of the side of the truck looks really good. Has the heated fold out tow mirrors. They fold out like so. They have built in directional signals. They also fold in. Inside the big horn package gives you the gray cloth interior. There are no rips. There are no tears on these seats. Very, very clean inside. This truck has never been smoked in. Smells very clean. Both these front seats are heated. Power driver seat with lumbar, factory, all other formats throughout. Auto headlamps, power pedals, audio controls on the back of the steering wheel, power windows, power locks and power mirrors. These mirrors also power fold in. Now he's showing both sides so you know all the options are working on the truck. As we hop inside the vehicle here, we'll turn the ignition on so you can check out all the instrument cluster here. You can see that this one has 13,703 miles. You do get the digital speedometer, outside temp and compass display. It's telling me that we got to inflate these tires to 80 psi. While the TPMS sensors are working, these tires are not rated up to 80 so that's why we don't have all the air in the tires that needs to be there. Just so you know that before you come look at the truck, the tires are not rated to 80 psi. It has the heated leather-wrapped steering wheel, Bluetooth and information center controls on the left. Cruise controls on the right. Steering wheels in pretty nice shape. Six-speed automatic transmission with the optional tap shift comes with the 8.4C radio, AM, FM and Sirius XM radio capabilities. You can see it does have the factory navigation system. You have your heated seats and heated steering wheel controls there. You have the backup cam. You also have the cargo cam, which is a really neat feature. And then you have your climate controls where you can do all your climate, where it's blowing, your AC, defrost, all that good stuff. And then you also have the projection manager where you can project your cell phone to the screen via Android Auto or Apple CarPlay. If you've got a different navigation system on your phone or if you just want to play music on the radio through your phone, you can do that. We actually did a demo on Android Auto if you want to check that out. It's in the upper right-hand part of the screen. But a really nice system there too. Down here you get more tactile climate and volume controls for the radio. You also get your factory brake controller. Five auxiliary up-fit buttons, stability control, tow haul and your factory exhaust brake. Tile four-wheel drive, 115 volt, 150 watt plug-in. And the passenger side format and seat are in excellent condition as well. No rips or tears on there. Once again, it smells very clean inside this truck. I don't think it's ever been smoked in. And you do get map lights up there. Home link buttons for your garage door security systems and lighting systems.  Assistant SOS buttons in the rear view mirror. We'll check out the back seats and then we'll start it up and take a quick look under the hood. Back seats are just as clean as the front seats. No rips, no tears back here. It does have the latch child safety system for any child car seats you may want to put back here. Power sliding rear window with the built-in rear defrost. Seats are in excellent condition. You do get a load floor back here, which is really nice. If you've got muddy boots or tools, put them on there.  They've got a nice flat place to lay and aren't going to be wrecking your seats. Storage under those seats. All weather floor map back here. And you do get in-floor storage with two removable bins for easy cleaning. You can put ice and drinks in there and it's like you get too many coolers wherever you go. Back doors look really good and you do get the child safety locks on those doors. Okay, plates and bottoms of the doors all look really good. And we'll start it up and take a quick look under the hood. I would personally like to thank you for checking out the video today. And hopefully from this HD video, you will have been able to tell just how clean this truck is all the way around. Inside and out. Under the hood, we have a 6.7 liter coming to you. Once again, this truck has been fully safe-eated and inspected by our server shop as a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off. This truck is 100% ready to go. And I would highly recommend this truck from a quality and condition standpoint. And to see more pictures of this truck or one of our other 450 new and used cars, trucks, SUVs, minivans, Wranglers, half-tons, three-quarter-tons, one-tons. You name it, we got it on our website right there at www.summitauto.com. Full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations all at www.summitauto.com. And if you'd like to check out more HD videos, you can go to www.youtube.com. Remember to like, subscribe, and share on this video and all the videos that you see there. Back in a second, you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left. It links to more Ram 2500 truck videos like this one I'm ready. If you have not been to our website on the bottom link to this vehicle on our website, click those. Check us out. And we really look forward to helping with this super clean 2018 Ram 2500 true cab short box, big horn, and brilliant black crystal pearl with the Cummins diesel. Thanks again for checking out the video.


The study aims to explore health care education experts' ideas and plans for preparing the health workforce to work with artificial intelligence, AI, and identify critical gaps in curriculum and educational resources across a national health care system. The results highlight the importance of education on ethical implications, suitability of large datasets for use in AI clinical applications, principles of machine learning, and specific diagnosis and treatment applications of AI as well as alterations to cognitive load during clinical work and the interaction between humans and machines in clinical settings. Respondents also outlined barriers to implementation, such as lack of governance structures and processes, resource constraints, and cultural adjustment. This article was authored by Kathleen Gray, John Slavittanec, Gerardo Luis de Maguila, and others.


Dr. Herman Oberth, who pioneered rocket design during World War II, once cryptically stated, quote, we cannot take the credit for our record advancement in certain scientific fields. We have been helped. When asked by whom, he replied, the people of other worlds. Additionally, according to Above Top Secret by Timothy Goode in William Morrow, Oberth's fellow space pioneer, Werner von Braun, echoed this mysterious reference, even including the existence of extraterrestrials, when he stated in 1959, quote, we find ourselves faced by powers which are far stronger than hitherto assumed and whose base is at present unknown to us. More I cannot say at present. We are now engaged in entering into closer contact with those powers, and within six or nine months time, it may be possible to speak with more precision on the matter, end quote. Just who were the people of other worlds that Dr. Oberth spoke of, or indeed these entities that von Braun referred to? With only Oberth's quotations, one could presume a possible reverse engineering of alien craft. However, with von Braun's more detailed expose, this possibility seems to be excluded in favor of pertained actual assistance and contact with advanced beings. Many people also believe that an encounter with these beings, along with third-right craft built with their technology, was once encountered in an operation known as Operation High Jump. According to certain independent researchers, Richard E. Byrd, admiral of this operation, possibly encountered a hostile, formidable opponent who he has claimed to have described as fighters that were able to fly from one pole to another with incredible speed. In reality, however, whatever Byrd's expedition experienced may never be fully publicly disclosed as all reports, including Byrd's personal log entries, remain mysteriously classified. But the connections between these curious quotations, and indeed the rumored encounters by this classified operation, are certainly intriguing. Furthermore, Operation High Jump was originally organized by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal. Interestingly, in 1949, Forrestal was sent to recover from a supposed nervous breakdown at Bethesda Naval Hospital. However, after allegedly ranting the staff about the Antarctic, UFOs, and an underground Nazi city, Forrestal was denied all visitors. Shortly after, he mysteriously died in a fall from his hospital room window. What did Forrestal know? Were his perceived delusional rants based upon reality? According to the legend of the German Vril Society, a secret remote viewing was held in 1919 at an old hunting lodge near Brexitegaden. During this event, Maria Arsik, a self-proclaimed medium, presented her supposed telepathic messages, which she claimed to have received from an extraterrestrial civilization existing in the constellation of Taurus. It is reported that these messages contained instructions for building a circular flight machine. It is interesting to note that German Oriental scholars and occultists alike regarded such mystic teachings with complete seriousness, with well-documented, well-funded diligent efforts put forth to discover and such individually proclaimed powers and their messages therein into viable technological realities. What happened in the Antarctic? Who were these people from other worlds that von Braun and Oberth spoke of? Did the Third Reich make contact with an alien, or possible highly advanced once ancient civilization, allowing them to engineer mystifying technologies? We find such claims, rumors, and fragments of evidence to support such possible realities highly compelling. Hey guys, Matt from Mystery History here. So today I wanted to share with you a confession. A confession by this man. His name is Dr. Ala Shaheen, and he is one of the world's leading Egyptologists. He is also head of the Cairo University Archaeology Department. He rubs shoulders with top Egyptian government figures and members of the Egyptian state of antiquities. If anyone knows about Egypt's most in-er-kept secrets, it's this guy. In December 2010, he was hosting a conference to a select group of delegates about ancient Egyptian architecture when he let something slip. He admitted to being complicit in the covering up of an astonishing secret. He has since retracted the statement and is now denying he ever made it, however, during the conference a handful of press reporters were present. They all ran the same story, shortly after the conference all quoting the same remark, making it rather difficult to believe that he didn't actually say it. In what I can only imagine was a misjudgment of trust when questioned regarding the possibility of alien involvement in the construction of ancient Egypt. He not only confirmed this to be the case, but confessed to knowing, and I quote, there is still something inside the pyramid that is not of this world. In a previous video I shared how the tomb of Osiris, once believed to have been a mythical god from Egyptian legend, a belief Egyptian antiquities would like to keep alive, was actually discovered recently. The tomb was found by traversing an access tunnel system just a few inches in diameter. From the moment this impossible access passage was discovered, they quietly knew they had found something amazing. The moment Egyptian authorities finally managed to get a robot with a camera into the tomb, a complete media blackout descended upon Egypt. Walls were constructed around the tomb and no information regarding the find was shared for several weeks. When the world was eventually allowed near the site, the tomb was found to have been conveniently empty. No explanation as to how grave robbers could have possibly gotten into the tomb has ever been produced. Was Osiris an alien? Was our previous research bang on the money? Even an Egyptian legend, the figure known as Thoth was said to have allowed beings such as Ra and Osiris to exist in our realm. Were ancient Egyptian artists accurate in their depictions of these beings as hybrids? If as Dr. Alashahid states, along with ancient Egyptian literature, that there is indeed something otherworldly under the Great Pyramid, could it really be a portal? And if it is, why hide it? Regardless of what it is, they are definitely hiding something. What otherworldly thing do you think is hidden under the Great Pyramid? Let us know in the comments. Thanks for watching guys, until next time, take care. There are many curious things found throughout recent years found within images taken by Google Earth, with some being particularly peculiar. One such find being that of a seemingly frozen ship, measured at 400 feet long, it is as if it were picked up and planted upon this enormous block of frozen ice within Antarctica. Dismissed by some as simply being that of a naturally formed block of ice, yet the resemblance to a cruise liner is unquestionably uncanny. If indeed a ship like the one we have covered previously, an old lifeboat found in the 70s within an inescapable lagoon within the interior of Buvi Island, one of the most inhospitable and remote places on Earth, ravaged almost yearly by storms, with no explanation as to how it arrived there. This ship would undoubtedly raise similar questions. Some conspiracy theorists even putting forward the posit that it is possibly the remnants of a Nazi vehicle, a theory linked to a base long claimed to have been created down here during the Second World War. Whatever the answer, questions regarding this curious find remain. Could this really be a ship literally frozen solid in an almost impossible location? And if so, where did it come from and how did it get to where it rests now? We find this discovery highly compelling. During the last few years, reports have begun to circulate regarding a joint team of American and European explorers in the Antarctic. Around 20 kilometers across the Antarctic border, this team of non-governmental explorers actually confirmed the existence of a set of three ancient stone block pyramids peering out from beyond the shrinking ice. The preliminary finding was even published in the press, yet all subsequent information on the find has been silenced. Possible aerial photographs of the location may have been leaked, as there are some very compelling images of pyramidal ruins in Antarctica now circulating the web. American and European governments have attempted to shrug off the accusations as absurd. However, as more and more specialists are converted by substantial evidence within Egypt as to the sheer age of the Sphinx and pyramids. Many researchers now conclude that these huge ancient structures found around the world were most likely built prior to the last Ice Age. Additionally, fossilized ancient palm tree pollen has been found in numerous sites within Antarctica, confirming it was once much warmer than it is today, making it highly possible that past civilizations did indeed inhabit this now frozen continent. The Pyre Re's map is another compelling piece of artifactual evidence to suggest that past cultures had an intimate knowledge of the Antarctic coast before it was coated in ice. A map built from the vast ancient literature once housed, and subsequently destroyed in the wrecking of Alexandria's library, knowledge which could have proved the existence of this past culture. Ancient pyramidal sites dot every continent of Earth, the only continent governments strongly deny the existence of any ancient ruins whatsoever is Antarctica. But what are they hiding in Antarctica? They just happens to have been some very strange visitations to the Antarcticas of late, in the past year alone, countless top officials from Russia, America, religious groups, and other official bodies from around the world have been quietly visiting the continent in succession, with no substantial reasons for their visits being given. Have they found an ancient city perfectly preserved in the ice? Maybe an ancient advanced technology, maybe even a Stargate? The question is. Will we ever be told? Our conjecture that there is a lost yet once highly advanced ancient civilization could be proven beyond doubt by one continent in particular. Antarctica, for many millennia, this land has been encased perfectly preserved, laying beneath miles of ancient ice. The Pyre Re's map, something which we have discussed in the past, has long been argued to prove just that. Long claimed as showing that of the landmass of Antarctica free of ice. If true, it would have been impossible to have created according to modern paradigm. Thought to have originated from the embers of the Great Fire of Alexandria, this catastrophe, a tragic loss to man's understanding of our own origins. Yet, this map survived, clearly displaying what many believe to be the continent of Antarctica, before becoming what is now a frozen ice cap at the pole of our planet. It is now an incredibly inhospitable place. One of the reasons we feel, there may be intact undisturbed ruins, which may dot the land, known to be the driest place on Earth, and in addition to this compelling possibility of submerged, yet highly advanced ruins, there may be many other unexplained anomalies that due to their incredibly remote geographical placement across some of the world's now most impenetrable natural obstacles, recording some of the lowest temperatures on Earth. If proven beyond doubt to exist, would be proof of a preserved pre-ice age existence for advanced man. Yet due to this immense cold, and the fact that it is a largely unexplored tundra capable of killing even the most experienced of explorers, many things which rest here remain unexplored. Yet just like that of the face of the moon, one must ask the question, just what could be laying there, buried within or resting upon this giant ice sheet many miles deep? Just like the anomalies discovered in Roswell, New Mexico in July 1947, which although strongly argued by officials as that of a United States Army Air Force's balloon which crashed at tremendous velocity at a ranch near Roswell, which many claim was in fact a UFO which crashed, would inevitably be covered up by whatever power was capable of not only visiting such anomaly but retrieving it. Crashing into the seemingly endless tundra and our next item of interest could behold just as controversial in origin as that of the causation for what many claim as the Roswell conspiracy, a truth so controversial only top military personnel would be privy to. This remarkable image taken by satellite clearly displays an as yet unexplored anomaly, resting at the basin of a hilltop it presumably crashed into, with its velocity upon impact sliding the mysterious object down the side of the mountain. When other such objects have been discovered in the past, indeed in the same way as that of amateur sleuths pouring over satellite images looking for these exact features, military vehicles have been later snapped at these same locations, unquestionable proof of the world's government's interest in such discoveries, not only due to the environment but also its remoteness. Found in permanently frozen areas could mean that if such objects do indeed turn out to be that of an alien craft, could also be in a condition to be successfully reversed engineered if not repaired by man. A technological explosion would inevitably occur, a lucrative operation indeed, so we find it curious that several such events have been claimed to have occurred since 1947. Could this also be positive to be as a result of this exact claim scenario, discovered, retrieved, reverse engineered, and finally either adapted for military purpose or commercial profits? What is this thing laying far away in the frozen Antarctic? Is it indeed a crashed alien vehicle? We find the anomaly highly compelling. In the January of 1974, a man by the name of Duncan Lunan published an article called Space Probe from Epsilon Boutis. It concerned a mystery surrounding long-delayed radio echoes or LDEs first reported in the 1920s. Mysterious echoes of the transmitter's voice, which were far too powerful to have been simple reflections from Earth. Experimenters studying all over the world found that their outgoing pulses were being returned to them with a delay of three seconds, as if they were being amplified and returned by something at the distance of the moon, but definitely not the moon itself. These delay times began to vary upwards from three seconds in increasingly complicated sequences, but with no variation in intensity, still indicating a single source amplifying and returning the pulses. Professor Ron Bracewell of Stanford suggested in 1960 that the echoes might have been rebroadcast by an unmanned probe from another civilization, a craft attempting to get our attention, and in 1972 Duncan would make an incredible discovery, successfully making a translation of the echo patterns. The variations of delay times appeared random, but Professor Bracewell himself had suggested that if indeed a probe, the first signal might be a star map. After plotting the delay times in chronological order, he found what indeed looked like a star map. Upon showing this to astronomers, it was recognized to have been a warped image of Epsilon Boutis in the constellation Boutis. Arcturus, the brightest star in the constellation, seemed to be out of place in the map, but on checking was shown at its plotted location within the map about 13,000 years ago. Predictably, the discoveries were treated as suspect and with great hostility by the academic community. Sadly, this pressure led to Duncan withdrawing his entire translation work and research. Did Duncan Lunan actually decipher the first message ever translated from an alien civilization? More research into this incredible echo anomaly is clearly needed, and the results of which release to the world. President Putin recently visited one of the most mysterious places on earth, the ruins of the ancient town of Arkheim. Historians, archaeologists, and UFOologists have spent many years trying to unravel the secrets of this place. Which nation was living in Arkheim more than 40 centuries ago? How did people of such ancient civilization manage to accomplish the incredible technological progress on earth there? The Arkheim Valley was supposed to be flooded in 1987. Local authorities were intending to create a water reservoir there to irrigate drought-prone agriculture. However, scientists found strange ancient circles in the center of the valley. Authorities gave archaeologists 12 months to explore the area. Scientists were shocked at what they discovered. However, it is not the unusual earthworks that have attracted investigators, but rather what was recently discovered beneath. A discovery which has seen several renowned alien investigators rushing to this remote and forgotten slice of the Russian landscape in search of the undeniable proof that we are not alone. Researcher Maria Makarova and her team were able to unearth a remarkably well-preserved skeleton in the ground beneath the site. However, it soon became evident that this was no normal skeleton, and although the research team have attempted to disagree with the clear possibility of it not actually being human remains, choosing to suspect that the skeleton somehow belonged to a woman from the Sarmati tribe, which lived in what is now Ukraine, Southern Russia, and Kazakhstan about 2,000 years ago. It unfortunately appears that this is an attempt to discredit the real possible value of these remains. This, being a logical move by all professional researchers funded by an academia, which would not appreciate such honest and clearly forgivable assumptions based on current evidence being publicly disclosed. For example, firstly, the Sarmatia tribe may have practiced headbinding. However, this practice is largely believed to have been located in other parts of the world, and the lack of any additional fines within the tribe supporting this assumption would seem this is a deceptive conclusion to arrive at. Additionally, when headbinding was undertaken, unmistakable evidence of such is left upon the skull. Deformed cranial napping, the stitching of the skull will not appear as normal, yet, alas, the stitching will always be present and easily identifiable. Though astonishingly, this skull clearly shows no evidence of binding on the photographs. What's more, and perhaps more pressing, is the lack of any cranial stitching visible whatsoever. This stitching of the skull plates is part of human growth, we all have them, yet this skeleton does not. What do you think regarding the find, an abnormal tribe member buried beneath an extremely ancient mysterious site, or something else entirely? The UK newspaper The Mail Online, that the object was clearly a simple crevasse in the ground. They can be tens of meters deep, nothing unusual, it's certainly not a UFO. Well it seems he may be right, however, an image purporting to be from the same site taken one year earlier has been uncovered. Researchers looking at previous satellite images of the same site taken in April and December 2011, found what appeared to be four massive vehicles parked in the snow, pointed towards a mysterious object. There appears to be more than a simple crevasse going on in this image. What appears to be going on is that a huge scientific research centre has been deployed to a meaningless location in an icy desert. Which just so happens to be by an object and strange feature in the ice, that looks all for the world like a crashed aircraft pattern, only for it to completely vanish a year later. What should we make of these earlier satellite images? While some reports identify the shapes as tanks, if they really are vehicles, they're massive in size, probably around 70 feet in length. There are no tire tracks, but they could have been covered by snow or blown away. They look more like research centres, also note the drift patterning around them towards the object, is this camouflage canvas, wire all the drifts in the same direction and none on the other side of the vehicles. Is it a crashed alien craft? If it was, I would have definitely filled in the whole afterwards.