The next item of business is a net zero energy and transport committee debate on the roads to COP 27 and beyond, tackling the climate emergency in the aftermath of COP 26, and I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons. I call on Dean Lockhart to speak on behalf of the net zero energy and transport committee. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This is not your typical committee debate where there is a committee report to read and comment on. Instead, the committee decided to use our time to reflect on the significant progress made at COP 26 in Glasgow, and more importantly perhaps to assess what progress is being made against climate change targets here in Scotland. My comments today largely reflect the evidence that the committee has heard over the past six months in relation to our inquiry on the role of local government in delivering net zero targets. We decided to conduct this inquiry because local authorities are one of the most important front-line delivery partners in this area. At this stage, I thank the clerks to the committee and SPICE for their first-class support and for arranging a number of excellent witness sessions. At the conclusion of COP 26, Senator John Kerry said the following. As we leave Glasgow, the fundamental issue is going to be implementation, delivery and follow-through on policy commitments. With that in mind, I want to highlight three of the biggest delivery challenges that we face in Scotland. In doing so, I remind the chamber that the most important role that committees have in this Parliament is to critically scrutinise Government policy, highlight where it may not be delivering and, ideally, provide suggested answers. The first thing that I want to address is the decarbonisation of heat, which I think is going to be one of the most difficult policies to deliver. The challenge is enormous to retrofit and install new heating systems in 1 million domestic dwellings and up to 50,000 business premises by 2030, with an estimated cost of £33 billion, with a vast majority of that funding to come from the private sector, all of which has to be delivered within the next eight years. If you take a closer look at this eight-year timeframe, the reality is that the sheer scale of the physical work that is required means that the work will need to start by 2025 at its latest. In other words, it will take at least five years, if not longer, to retrofit and decarbonise 1 million homes. That is 200,000 conversions a year. Just by way of context, the current rate of installation of heat pumps in Scotland is 2,500 a year, according to SPICE, so there is obviously quite a bit to go. Before that physical work can begin, the required financing will have to be in place. Projects cannot start until there is guaranteed financing in place. All that effectively means is that the Scottish Government has only two or three years before 2025 to co-ordinate and arrange the bulk of the necessary financing. We are looking at somewhere in the region of between £10 billion and £15 billion, and that is only half of the overall estimated cost. That will clearly be a massive challenge, because if we are asking the private sector to invest £10 to £15 billion, a huge amount of preparation needs to start now. First of all, investors will need comprehensive data on the housing stock that is being financed, its valuation, physical condition, historical rental income, historical rates of rental delinquency and, most likely, a rating from one of the rating agencies. However, it appears that not a lot of work is currently being done in this area. For example, Patrick Harvie, the Minister in charge of the heat and buildings policy, replied to my parliamentary question by saying that the breakdown of numbers of dwellings that will require upgrades in different periods and across different tenures is not currently available. In giving evidence to the committee, the Phoenix Group, one of the largest potential private investment funds in the area, told us that, I quote, there is a lack of comparable data, which is a big challenge. Then there is the challenge of scale. Local authorities will need to combine their housing stock assets in order to meet the scale of investment required by private investors. Susan Aitken, head of Glasgow City Council, told us, and I quote, in terms of financing, we need to be able to engage with the private sector at a level and scale that has never been done before in local government. Local authorities in Scotland are not able to offer that on their own. Again, it is not clear to me how much groundwork is being done to look at how we can scale up these projects, and we will need the data to be in place before we can scale up the projects. Even when all of this groundwork has been done, it will take time for a market for these financial investments to develop. It is not realistic to expect to be able to raise £10 to £15 billion over the course of a few months. If the 2030 targets are to be feasible at all, the urgent question is what has been done to progress this essential work, and who is going to take this forward? We know that local authorities have told the committee that they do not have the capacity, the requisite skills or the expertise to deliver these targets. We know that it will not be the Scottish National Investment Bank. The reality is that this work can only be led and progressed by the Scottish Government. I had a constructive exchange with the cabinet secretary at the committee on this question, and I believe that his position is that most of this work will be undertaken by the new national energy agency. However, I continue to have concerns that this will not nearly be enough to address the challenges that I have outlined. This new body will be a virtual agency with no additional resource, no additional budget and no additional staff, and it is only going to become operational by 2025, the year when the physical work will have to start. Given all of those challenges that I have highlighted to the committee, I have to tell the cabinet secretary that, as things stand, it is hard to see how the 2030 targets to decarbonise heat and buildings will be met. I look forward in his remarks to perhaps addressing some of the concerns that I have raised. Let me briefly highlight two further areas of challenge in terms of delivery that the committee has taken evidence on. In the transport sector, the roll-out of public EV charging points will be vital in reducing emissions. However, again, this is another area in which we are falling behind targets. The UK climate change committee has said that we need 30,000 public charging points by 2030. We currently only have around 2,100, which means that we need to be installing around 4,000 a year between now and 2030. We are currently not anywhere close to that rate. Again, although local authorities are the delivery agents, they need much more help from the Scottish Government in order to reach this target, to achieve economies of scale and to ensure that there is consistent technology that is used throughout Scotland. Dean Lockhart, I am very interested in the points that he said. In terms of the charging network, I agree that it is not just a numbers game, it is about getting the right chargers in the right place and also making sure that the on-going maintenance of those charged points is kept up in order to secure the public confidence that we need to see for that transition to happen. Dean Lockhart? Yes, I absolutely agree with what Liam McArthur has said. I think that it is about consistency of technology as well, making sure that the same charging points are using the same technology across all 32 local authorities. It is about economies of scale. There is no point in individual local authorities procuring different charging points at a higher cost when it can hopefully be done on a national basis and save some costs. Perhaps that is being done, but I will leave that to the cabinet secretary to inform us. I will wrap up on the third and final area of challenge that we need to address. It is the significant skills and expertise gap that we face across the public and private sectors. I do not have time to present the detailed evidence given to the committee on that, but it has been raised throughout the sessions. One of the Scottish Government's key policies to address the skills gap is the Green Jobs Workforce Academy, but the committee has heard evidence that that is effectively just a website that aggregates existing information and is not, frankly, in any sense, a skills academy as one would expect one to be. Cabinet Secretary, it is policies such as those that have caused the UK Climate Change Commission to call into question the credibility of the Scottish climate change framework. That is their words, not mine. We need to see much more robust measures to be taken across the areas of challenge that I have highlighted. I look forward to the cabinet secretary's response. I now call on Finlay Carson to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I thank my committee clerks and spies for their support in the work that we undertook on this topic. To coincide with COP26, the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee held a series of evidence sessions on the climate and nature emergencies, and I want to use my time to date to highlight some of the points from that evidence. In particular, I want to explore the idea of a just transition and a full systems approach to finding policy solutions to these challenges, the solutions that emphasise the importance of understanding the structure and relationships between different parts of the environment. In Scotland, our wealth of natural assets can often mask the underlying biodiversity loss happening right under our noses. Scotland's marine environment is one of the greatest assets rich in animal and plant life, and witnesses to the committee however outlined the impact climate change is having on fishing stocks, notably the increasing temperatures that are encouraging species to move further north or into deeper water. While witnesses emphasised that fisheries management over the last 20 years has resulted in recovery in many native species, called being the notable exception, those changes in temperature have impacted growth rates in juvenile fish stocks, and they reduce yields because people have to catch more of the smaller fish in order to make up their quota, taking more fish out of the ecosystem. What that tells us is that we need proper data to drive decision making when it comes to fisheries and environmental management to ensure that we are aligning policy to meet the challenges of a changing marine environment. Aquaculture is a significant contributor to a rural economy, providing jobs in some of Scotland's most remote communities, but we also need to balance environmental interests. Everyone will be aware of the independent review of how fish farms are regulated and the committee will consider their findings in due course. It is clear that we need to support those industries to transition responsibly. That is a sentiment echoed by many of the farmers that we spoke to. As custodians of the land, many farmers are understarred and far better than most of us, they need to transition to more sustainable farming practices. Indeed, many have been doing that for quite some time. In evidence, the nature friendly farming network welcomed policies that supported wildlife and climate friendly farming and nature-based solutions, but also emphasised the need for a full system approach, which includes more constructive engagement with the private sector. That is a perspective shared by many stakeholders who have engaged with the committee's inquiry on the Good Food Nation Bill and emphasised the interconnected nature of the food system. That points to a worrying picture, but the committee members have been heartened by the range of work that has already been carried out in Scotland to reverse some of the trends. At the Sea Wilding project based in Cregnish, it is one example. The community-led project is working to reverse trends and biodiversity loss by reintroducing or bolstering key species such as oysters and seagrass. Importantly, the Sea Wilding project uses a range of low-cost methods that it believes could easily be replicated across communities. I would like to see more done to help those kinds of initiatives so that they can be copied across Scotland. The Sea Wilding project exemplifies the need for us all to be better custodians of the natural environment. That is reflected in the evidence that we have heard from SIPA, which emphasises the need to move away from a mass transaction approach whereby regulators simply encourage polluters to improve their environmental performance to this full system approach. SIPA gave an example of regulation of the whisky sector in barley growers, so rather than dealing with individual businesses, SIPA instead looked at the wider challenges facing rural communities with respect to climate change, one being water scarcity. It also adopted a more holistic approach, sitting down with the whisky industry, barley growers and others, to ask just how they can help to reduce water use in their supply chain. That full system approach aids regulators, producers and communities in tackling the multiple challenges simultaneously while making domestic production more resilient. That again speaks to the need for a more integrated and holistic approach to policy making, which adds and adequately values natural assets in a sustainable way, something that is well defined through the notion of a natural capital. The committee had the pleasure of speaking with Professor Dieter Helm from Oxford University, an expert in this area, and he has described why natural capital is a helpful way of thinking about the great environmental challenges that we face as it forces us to see the environment as a key input into the economy, ending the tension between economic growth and protecting and enhancing environment. In conclusion, Scotland is not immune from the impact of climate change, but some good work has already been done to mitigate those effects. Scotland has its part to play in addressing those challenges globally, and key industries need to be supported to adjust transition, and policy makers need to take a full system approach in finding policy solutions to those challenges. That strong links to the Royal Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee's remit and the significant developments that post-EU exit for fisheries and agricultural policy. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands told us last week about the fisheries marine strategy under development, and agriculture reform is due in 2023. Together, those offers us our unprecedented opportunity to reconsider our relationship with the natural environment and how we use and benefit from them, and the committee looks forward to scrutinising those policies over the course of the session. Thank you to the net zero energy and tourism committee for holding, transport committee for holding this important debate and giving me as the Royal Affairs and Islands and Natural Environment convener the opportunity to set out our priorities within this important issue. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome the committee bringing forward this debate on the road to COP 27 following the COP26 taking place in Glasgow last year. Presiding Officer, tackling the climate crisis is the most urgent issue of our time. COP26 was not only one of the largest events that were held in Scotland, but also one of the most important. We can, of course, be proud of the contribution that Scotland made towards its successful outcome. The summit concluded with the adoption of the Glasgow climate pact, seeing countries commit to increased ambition and action. The pact means that capping temperatures increases at 1.5 degrees is no longer questioned. Action on adaptation and finance is agreed as being critical. For the first time, there are to be discussions on helping developing countries pay for loss and damage. While the pact represents progress on many important issues and provides a basis for further action, we know that it did not deliver all the asks that every country called for. To keep 1.5 degrees alive, the commitments that are made in COP26 must be delivered and COP27 must see progress on those aims. Issues of fairness and equity were at the forefront of discussions during COP26, and it was recognised that more is required to adapt to and already changing climate and progress, the loss and damage agenda. We can be proud of the significant progress that Scotland has made in decarbonising the economy while strengthening it. In our 2019 data, it shows that we have reduced our emissions by 51.5 per cent on the 1990 baseline figures. We have decarbonised faster than any other country in the G20 since 2008. For example, the quantity of renewable energy that was produced in Scotland in 2020 was equivalent to 98 per cent of our gross electricity consumption. As recently as 2010, that figure stood at only 50 per cent. I am proud of the progress and the level of ambition that we have set out, but clearly we must go further to meet our highly ambitious targets and have no doubt that challenges lie ahead. It took 30 years to have our emissions and we need to do the same again over the next nine years alone. Last year, we finalised the updated climate change plan, which included commitments to invest at least £1.8 billion over this parliament to decarbonise heat and £250 million package to restore 250,000 hectares of degraded peatland by 2030. We continue to raise our ambitions. During COP, we published our hydrogen action plan, backed by more than £100 million of funding and announced a new £55 million multi-year commitment to the nature restoration fund to transform, protect and drive forward nature's recovery. Since COP26, we have published a route map on our commitment to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030. As of 31 January, all residents in Scotland have access to free bus travel. I also noted with interest the recent survey that was published by Renewables UK, which shows that Scots overwhelmingly support political parties that support renewable power generation. Aligning with their own research, indicating that public backing for wind energy is at a record high. Further more, I take a brief intervention from the member and I have to make progress. Of course, I will be brief. The public also appeared to support nuclear generation in Scotland. Does the minister concede that? I recognise that some people in Scotland support it, but we are committed to making sure that we deliver on renewables, which is a much cheaper form of electricity and helps to reduce bills, unlike nuclear power. In response to Russia's horrifying and appalling invasion of Ukraine, the European Commission has outlined plans to enable independence from Russian gas. It proposes to speed up the renewable roll-out, improve energy efficiency and replace gas in heating and power, with the aim to reduce demand for Russian gas by two thirds before the end of this year. The executive vice-president of the European Green Deal, Franz Timmerman, highlighted that renewables are the cheap, clean and potentially endless source of energy. Instead of funding fossil fuel industry elsewhere, they create jobs here. The commission's views on fossil fuels chime with their own rejecting unlimited extraction. Scotland's energy sector can be a key part of a solution that seeks to ensure energy security amid on-going economic and geopolitical turbulence. Our focus is on achieving the fastest possible just transition for the oil and gas sector, and we are currently updating our energy strategy and our just transition plan, setting out how we can make sure that the economic and social impacts of the energy transition are being managed. Of course, the commitments do not stop at our borders. Scotland led by example COP26 by becoming the first developed country in the world to support countries experiencing loss and damage through the world's first climate justice fund, and we intend to build on that in the years to come. As we move towards COP27, we are establishing a COP27 programme that builds on our achievements from COP26 and ensures that we play our part in delivering the Glasgow climate pact and to attract investment and jobs as part of the transition here in Scotland. For all our different views and our different routes to possible solutions, the net zero committee is, in my view, a very effective committee. It is one that adopts an informed and in-depth approach, and its members are prepared to listen to each other's points of view. On the road to COP27, I think that evidence-based collaborative working will be very important, which the theme I shall return to shortly. As the cabinet secretary said, COP26 did indeed set us on that road. It kept the goal of limiting global warming to one and a half degrees alive. It sounded the death knell for coal power alongside a pledge to cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. More than 100 countries signed a pledge to reverse deforestation, and the UK, the second highest performing country in the climate change performance index, sets the example. Remember, between 1990 and 2019, while the UK emissions decreased by 44 per cent, the fastest in the G7, we grew the economy by 78 per cent, showing that this can be done. The UK is the largest producer of offshore wind energy in the world, and the UK has doubled our international climate finance to help developing nations. However, the cabinet secretary was right again that we must do more. That means substance, not sound bites. When Mark Ruskell writes in Saturday's Herald that renewables can replace oil and gas, he surely has got to back that up with a firm evidence-based answer as to the question when. Just two days ago, I asked the cabinet secretary what year he projected his ramped-up renewables would ensure that we had no further need for oil and gas. He did not even attempt to answer that. Instead, he resorted to weasel words, as he did just now, saying that the equivalent of Scotland's domestic electricity supply, some 98 per cent of it, now comes from renewable sources. Of course, the reality is that, in 2020, 56 per cent of the electricity consumed in Scotland came from renewable sources. My point is this, if we are to have any chance, we have to deal in reality, not spin. Mark Ruskell. I thank the member for giving way on that point. Does he not recognise, though, that there is a commitment from the Scottish Government to look at that question about what our energy needs are, about how quickly we can make the transition away from oil and gas and how quickly we can deploy renewables to replace that? That is not an easy question to answer, but it is being done. The Government is doing that work. I recognise the commitment, but the point that I am making, Mr Ruskell, is that a Government that hides behind selective data, patting itself on the back for mediocrity, gives false confidence that the problem is being addressed. What we cannot have here is ministers telling people to install microenergy generation, while only 22 per cent of government buildings have solar panels, or telling people to cut their energy usage than spending more than £4 million of public money on energy guzzling electronic billboards, or telling us all to drive electric vehicles while less than a fifth of public bodies vehicles are zero emission. Doing more means moving away from silo thinking, which means not implementing a car park tax to force us on to public transport, but cutting 250 rail services and presiding over a £640 million black hole in funding for decarbonising buses. It means Patrick Harvie examining his blanket opposition to road building, while wilfully ignoring a report showing lorries on single carriageway trunk roads emit nearly two tonnes more CO2 every day than on a dual carriageway, or telling us that his solution to cutting emissions and saving the planet is banning drive-throughs, or telling the people of Aberdeen that the way to decarbonise their granite houses is to put in solid wall insulation without bothering to find out how much that actually costs or how long the disruption would last. My second point, Presiding Officer, was illustrated by both Mark Ruskell and the Cabinet Secretary in their herald contributions, because, rather than acknowledge, for example, the UK Government's contracts for different scheme in Scotland, or that, thanks to being part of the UK Scotland, we will get two free ports, backed by up to £52 million of UK funding, or the UK Government's £110 million investment in offshore wind manufacturing in Rothshire, alongside a huge investment into Scotland's tidal power, both pivoted to denigrating the UK, which is extraordinary when you consider that it is this Government that, for example, has failed to hit its own legal emissions targets and its renewable heat targets and pushed back its flagship commitment to ban biodegradable landfill waste, and it is that desperation for deflection that risks potholes on the road to COP 27. The member is about to conclude. It is a facile and simplistic approach to policy making, which owes more to fermenting grievance and division than it does to seriously confronting the very real climate emergency. Presiding Officer, if we truly want to proceed on the road to COP 27, we must travel it together. The Scottish Government must look to our committee and observe how those with fundamentally different views work productively together. Let's have less spin, fewer sound bites, more substance, and much more collaborative collegiate working between Scotland's two Governments. The generation-defining decisions made bail the keep alive the goal agreed in Paris a decade ago of limiting global warming to one and a half degrees. The task of Glasgow was to set out credible plans for delivering a 50 per cent cut in global emissions by 2030, and, although the summit made modest progress, it was largely a missed opportunity—climate delay when we really needed climate delivery. The commitments from Glasgow for 2030, even if implemented, represent less than 25 per cent of the ambition required. Rather than that, the destructive but manageable were on the half degrees. They have still put us on track for a devastating two and a 2.4 degrees. That is why, according to the UN Secretary General, the goal of 1.5 degrees is on life support. The job of all Governments, including their own two, is to deliver intensive care. That starts by being honest about what happened in Glasgow. There were some positives, but COP26 was spin over substance. Too much praise of inadequate net zero plans. Minor commitments were described as transformational by the Prime Minister. That emboldened the big emitters who clubbed together to gut the main deals on coal. There is still no sign of the overdue $100 billion in climate finance being delivered with developing countries still having to argue for it at COP26 10 years after it was agreed. That has damaged the trust and broken the coalition between the most vulnerable developing countries and developed countries. That was the foundation of the landmark Paris agreement in 2015 and maximised pressure at that time on the world's big emitters. It is tragic that we did not see a repeat in Glasgow. The question now is what is going to be different in the next year in the run-up to COP27. As president of COP26, the UK Government needs to lead on urgently rebuilding the Paris climate coalition and with it trust with the developing world. We need to call out the big hitters far more. At home, we need to stop just talking about a just transition and start delivering one. Take transport. It is still the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland, responsible for more than a third. The Scottish Government has just hiked up rail fares by record levels, are pressing ahead with cuts to ticket offices and are axing 90,000 train services a year. We are still waiting for the Government to give councils the powers to run their own local bus services that I secured in the transport bill over two years ago. Never mind the smart ticketing that was promised over a decade ago. In Glasgow, the delegates are going to COP benefitted from that smart integrated ticketing, but not commuters going to their work during the day. It is not good enough that the people of Scotland cannot have smart ticketing when we can deliver it for international visitors. In 2012, the First Minister promised Scotland the salt air card. Ten years on, all the Government has delivered is a consultation in setting up a committee. When more than ever Scotland needs oyster card-style ticketing to make it cheaper, quicker and easier for commuters on buses, trains, trams, subways and ferries, the Government is stuck in the slow lane when it comes to smart ticketing. Today, when someone up, I hope that the minister will name the date when Scotland's commuters will stop being left behind the rest of the world and have a single national smart card. It has had 10 years to think about it, and I do not know whether I will get my bus pass or my smart card first. I fear that it will be the former. It is not just on public transport that the Government is leaving Scotland behind, but it is also on green jobs. We all remember Alex Salmond promising that Scotland would be the Saudi Arabia of renewables, but a decade on from the SNP pledge in 130,000 green jobs by 2020, it has delivered less than a six, and it is falling. That is why Scotland's oil and gas work has simply not trust the Government on jobs. Just weeks after a Green Minister sank plans for a publicly owned Scottish energy firm, the SNP and Green Coalition leased Scotland's seabeds on the cheap entirely to overseas-owned multinationals with questionable—I will take an intervention again. I will have to be very brief because we do not have any time in hand—very briefly please, Mr Kerr. Just on the oil and gas point, does the member not agree then, because he mentioned spin earlier on that it is not sufficient for the Scottish Government to announce the Just Transition Fund with great fanfare without putting any substance underneath it and just letting the oil and gas workers down? Mr Smith. I certainly agree with that point. One of the concerns that I certainly have is that on off-shore in Scotland's wind, the off-shore in the profits, but the fear is that it is also off-shore in the jobs. If Scotland will get none of the billions of profits, we are going to get a pitiful level of rent. What I would ask the Government to do is to make sure that the money that we do receive—the £700 million and possibly slightly more—is actually invested in our Scottish Renewable Funds to create those jobs that we need invested in Scottish ports, investment in skills and investment in Scottish factories, because it is bad enough that the wind is not only off-shore, but so are the profits, and we cannot let it also be the jobs. We all recognise the need for a transition to net zero, but it has to be a jobs-led, just transition. There is a lot more we can say today about the journey to net zero, but I appreciate that we are running out of time. I will say that Labour will be guided by our priority in the months and years ahead that we will call for a just transition, a green industrial revolution that leaves no worker, no family and no community behind. We need to have climate justice, but we also have to have economic justice, and only by delivering both will we have a genuine just transition to net zero, which is led by good, secure, unionised jobs for our people. I thank Dean Lockhart and his committee colleagues for enabling the debate. The circus has long since left town, but it is right that we have a cold hard look at what was achieved at COP26 and where we go from here. As others have suggested, progress was made, not enough, but progress on mitigation, adaptation and on loss and damage. A welcome is long overdue recognition of the role nature and biodiversity must play in helping us to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees, which I hope is reflected in the Government's forthcoming biodiversity strategy and natural environment bill, yet there is no avoiding the fact that COP26 fell short. Targets for cold down but not out, vital climate finance delayed again and what climate action track I referred to as quote a clear credibility action and commitment gap. Indeed, this description fits uncomfortably well Scotland's current situation. For all the talk of world-leading legislation, the Scottish Government has repeatedly missed its emissions reduction targets 2020 may be met but only thanks to the pandemic. On transport, accounting for a third of all emissions, progress remains stalled. We need to see the Government's loan scheme to help people move to electric vehicles expanded and repayment periods extended. We need a massive expansion of the charging network referred to by Dean Lockhart, including in residential areas, along with accelerated progress in the transition for other vehicle types. We urgently need a ferry replacement programme that can both reduce emissions but also protect lifeline services. On heat, we've actually gone into reverse. There's much to welcome in the recently published heat strategy but the price tag it places on households and businesses is unrealistic even before the cost of living crisis hit. We need the Government to scale up its ambition and contribution to the national retrofit programme. We need a fabric first approach and presumption that all new builds are installed with zero or low-carbon heating systems and for those looking to install such systems there should be upfront vouchers rather than cash back or loans. On renewable energy of course the news is better but that's not to say there aren't challenges here too. The Scotland announcement leaves questions about how this will actually be delivered and the impact on the Scottish supply change, the point picked up by Colin Smyth. Before making final decisions on contracts, I'd urge the Cabinet Secretary to speak directly to relevant supply chains, including those in Orkney with whom I met last week. When we see wind farm jackets at methyl being built not by Scottish workers but by workers from elsewhere in Europe, the scale of the challenge ahead is obvious. Of course the appalling situation that is unfolding in Ukraine and the steps rightly being taken to reduce reliance on Russian gas and oil will also need to be factored into decisions going forward. We do not expect immediate answers to that but this is inevitably going to have an impact not just on the speed of transition but also in the shape of our energy mix in the years ahead. Presiding Officer, our efforts to achieve our interim target and net zero by 2045 continue to enjoy strong cross-party support in this Parliament. However, after years of falling behind, Scottish ministers must spell out in much greater detail how they intend to get back on track. As the UK climate change committee stated, most of the key policy levers are now in the hands of the Scottish Government, but promises have not turned into action. Looking ahead to COP 27, Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that this mismatch between promises and action by ministers must be urgently addressed. We now move to the open debate. I would advise members that there is no time in hand. Members have up to four minutes to make their speeches and any interventions they choose to take must be absorbed within their speech. I call Natalie Don, who is joining us remotely to be followed by Tess White. Thank you, Presiding Officer. COP 26 was a significant point in our planet's future. However, while there was much positive progress made, we still have a long way to go. As we have already heard today, COP 26 succeeded in keeping the ambition of 1.5 degrees alive in sight and the importance of that is no longer questioned, but it will only be delivered through immediate global efforts. Here in Scotland, we have some of the most ambitious climate targets anywhere in the world. One of the large-scale messages at COP 26 was that countries in general must have emissions versus 1990 levels by 2030. That is why Scotland's legally binding 2030 emissions target of a 75 per cent reduction is world-leading in its ambition. The Scottish budget for this year reaffirmed our commitment to those targets, providing the first £20 million of our 10-year 500 million just transition fund, £336 million of energy efficiency, low-carbon and renewable heat and £60 million for large-scale heat decarbonisation projects. That is just some of the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to meet our climate targets. I am extremely proud of the role that Scotland played in COP 26, leading the way by becoming the first developed nation to commit funding to loss and damage, and recently committing to treble the world's first climate justice fund to £36 million over this Parliament. I want to expand on that. Scotland has committed to a climate justice approach, recognising that the most least responsible for the global emergency are being affected most severely by it. Our children did not create the mountains of plastic that we see lying in villages in Indonesia. They did not poison our oceans and they did not cut down the rainforests. Likewise, it is not the countries that have been worst affected by climate change that are profiting the most from it, and now leaders of the rich developed countries must go further. Today, I especially want to highlight the role of our young people in the climate crisis, who were not wholly satisfied with outcomes of COP 26.  If we fail them, it is young people that will bear the brunt of our inaction and incompetence. It is our generation's duty to ensure that our children have a planet to inherit. Just a few weeks ago, the ANZET committee heard from members of the Scottish Youth Parliament and the Children's Parliament, and it was so refreshing to speak to them and hear some of the things that they wanted to focus on, such as promoting active travel, sustainable green transport and a circular economy. However, it is not just about listening to young people—they absolutely must be included and be a key part of the decision-making process. Our approach to climate change will require co-operation at all levels, and at the moment, I feel that our young people are drastically underrepresented within a community setting, local government and national government. We need to ensure that we are welcoming and encouraging our young people to enable them to get involved. I am therefore delighted that the £500,000 for the social enterprise fuel change will accelerate the programme's expansion, enabling more young people to contribute to developing low-carbon solutions to climate-related challenges. Going to the conclusion, there are many challenges ahead, some of which my colleagues have highlighted today, and the work of the ANZET committee will be absolutely crucial in helping to work through these. The Scottish Government has taken action, and given some of the policies that I have outlined today, they are clearly committed to meeting the target set. However, given the reserved nature of many key policy levers for decarbonisation, a more ambitious UK-wide approach will be absolutely critical in achieving our goals. Although the net zero strategy reaffirms UK Government priorities, it does not go far enough in many of the areas where we have repeatedly called for action. The world's leading nations cannot procrastinate any longer. COP26 was not job done. It did not deliver as much as global south countries activists and campaigners rightly demanded. COP27 must see the world deliver on commitments made with urgency and energy, and ensure that the promises made are made, and that climate action delivers for those on the front line of the crisis. I now call Tess White to be followed by Shavon Bryde. COP26 and the Glasgow climate pact, negotiated and signed by almost 200 countries, underscored that climate change is an international crisis that requires an international response. It was a historic agreement to testament to the UK presidency and a huge step forward in keeping 1.5 degrees alive. Ahead of COP27, we are facing an international crisis of a different kind. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has provoked outrage the world over, and it has major geopolitical implications, not least for global energy supply, security and prices. This too will have a bearing on short to mid-term climate targets. The conflict will also prevent co-operation with Russia on climate change taking place, a huge emitter along with China. All of that will need to be considered carefully by the international community, as Egypt assumes the mantle of the COP presidency. The reality, Presiding Officer, is that we live in an interdependent world, and the world is in very different place to November 2021, when international representatives gathered in Glasgow. Governments must accept this, and they must respond accordingly. That is why Michael Matheson's response to legitimate questioning on energy supply and security by my colleague Liam Kerr earlier this week was so astonishing that it amounted to nothing to see and nothing has changed. No review of the Scottish Government's position on oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. No timeline for when Scotland will fully transition to renewables. Scant detail on the just transition flat-out refusal to look at nuclear energy options as part of Scotland's energy mix, and a lucive energy strategy. I am reminded of the fable of the chicken, who was so busy worrying about the sky falling in that he got eaten by the fox. The SNP Green Government wants to turn off the taps in the North Sea, but we are years away from the transition to renewables. It will be at least 10 years before the Scottish offshore wind sector is fully up and running. Skill shortages are hampering progress, shortages that Audit Scotland has attributed directly to the Scottish Government's lack of leadership. The climate change committee's latest report on Scotland's climate change plan is clear, and I quote, most of the key policy levers are now in the hands of the Scottish Government, but promises have not yet turned into action. Presiding Officer, what's happening 2,000 miles away must be a wake-up call. It simply isn't tenable to turn off domestic oil and gas production at this time of profound geopolitical uncertainty when Scotland's energy mix cannot meet demand. To do so would be complete madness. It would mean becoming increasingly reliant on foreign imports with implications for our carbon footprint and our energy security. It's madness too to deter investment in the North Sea with public pronouncements pandering to dogma and doctrine. At least Fergus Ewing has the gumption to disagree with the Greens. I urge Nicola Sturgeon to listen to her backbench rather than her extinction rebellion colleagues. Against the background of recent events, there is recognition from both the UK and Scottish Governments that we need to generate cheaper, cleaner power. The agreement on free ports, which will help to secure clean economic growth for Scotland, demonstrates what can be achieved when constitutional grievance is set to one side. As we look to COP 27, let's work together as one united kingdom to protect the planet. I now call Siobhan Brown to be followed by Monica Lennon. It was not long ago that Glasgow showed the world some Scottish hospitality as leaders gathered to address the climate crisis. COP 26, as we have heard already, provided an opportunity to make real positive changes in global policies to keep the goal of 1.5 alive. The Glasgow climate pact did not go as far as many of the countries had hoped for, and it was disappointing to see that there was watering down in the last moments of the summit. However, I am sure that we can agree that some progress was made, but there is so much more to do. It is imperative that we continue to work at an international level to find solutions with other countries around the globe to find a green transition from the pandemic. This is not an easy task, and we must all step up and rise to the challenge, and all do our bit no matter how small. Every bit helps us on this journey. All elected members in this chamber have a responsibility to decide what path Scotland will take in a role against climate change, and we already have so much to celebrate. Renewable energy makes up 97.4 per cent of our energy source. In my constituency of air and has played an integral part in meeting this demand, I recently visited the port of air to see firsthand the work that they do and what plans they have for the future as we move to net zero. Currently, many of Scotland's wind turbine blades come through the port before being assembled elsewhere in Scotland. Just up the road in Trun, I was joined by the Minister for Environment and Land Reform a few weeks ago to visit Glen and Brothers timber, another business that is thriving in my constituency. They sustainably produce timber from Scottish spruce to make Scottish homes. They then use the by-products of this process to generate all their own heat and energy. Furthermore, the timber link service supported by the Scottish Government saw 52,500 tonnes shipped directly into Trun harbour in 2021. This took the equivalent of 2,100 lorry movements off the road. We need to use our ports more and this fantastic timber link initiative and remove more lorries from our roads. It is clear that climate friendly policies can be business friendly policies. The two are not opposed to each other. While we should recognise the work that has already been done, we must not be complacent. There is still a long journey ahead and we need to be ambitious in order to preserve Scotland's beauty and our planet for our future generations to come. Members may have watched a recent BBC panorama documentary that showed the extent of illegal waste dumping in Scotland. It was, to say the least, shocking. These illegal practices by criminals have a massive effect on our environment, communities and our taxpayers. I am pleased to hear that the Justice Secretary is well aware of this and is making sure that these criminals are held accountable for their actions. Colleagues, the recycling process in Scotland is something that we do need to work on. Many everyday household items are put into recycling bins under the well-intentioned belief that they are recyclable. However, most people are not aware that items such as crisp packets, medicine blister packs, contact lens containers, bread bags, sweetie biscuits and stack wrapping, toothpaste tubes and milk bottle tops are just to name a few that cannot be recycled. This is because they are classed too hard to recycle and are usually only taken in by specialist schemes run by committed volunteers. One of them is Betty McDonald from Preswick, who has set up the town's Recycle Saturday initiative. Every month, Betty and a team of volunteers collect boxes full of these hard-to-recycle items, which are then sent to specialist recycling facilities. Betty is going above and beyond for her community. However, expansion of these schemes is severely limited. If we want to properly fix this problem, we need much larger action at a higher level. We need to educate people on the items that we can and we cannot recycle to stop our landfills from growing ever larger. Let me draw my remarks to a conclusion. Each and every one of us has been blessed with a country and a planet of outstanding natural beauty. We would do ourselves and our children's children a monumental disservice if we were not to protect and preserve it. This is something that goes far beyond party politics. Let's come together to work towards a just and fair transition to net zero for the benefit of Scotland and the world. It is a privilege to serve as a member of the National Energy and Transport Committee. I invite colleagues and the public to tune in on a Tuesday morning and follow our debates. I do not know what I was expecting from today's debate, because I know that it is a challenging one. There are so many topics to cover. I feel that people have tried, but we have heard a few soundbites and spins that I will try to avoid. I know that, on the committee, we are really collaborative. I think that there is a lot of different experience. We have a former cabinet secretary, former and sitting councillors, and we try to leave work if a party politics is the door. To be honest, in the crisis that we face around the world in climate and nature emergency, none of us can afford to be proud. We have to take good ideas wherever we find them. Yesterday, we had the youngest ever petitioner in the Scottish Parliament, who is seven years old, who came with a brilliant idea. He might have met the First Minister as well, and I think that he put a smile on people's faces. We should be proud that we are an open and listening Parliament. If you have a good idea, drop a line to the National Committee clerks. I am sure that they will thank me for saying that, but genuinely, we want to hear good ideas. We also want Government, whether that is heard in Scotland, the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the local government. We have a big inquiry on looking at the role of local government in achieving net zero and particularly looking at finance. I was going to interview my colleague Liam Kerr when he was talking about the two Governments. Let's not forget local government, because they are really, really important in this, and we need to hear more from our colleagues across Scotland's local authority. That is not what I had written down at all, but that was just my reflections on what I had heard so far. On the back benches, I kind of get a bit maybe a little bit of your style of speeches, but I do not think that any of us are under any illusion about the scale of the challenge that we face. It was a real privilege to play a very small part in COP26 and to attend with colleagues, and yes, some progress has been made, but we know not enough. I think that colleagues who were involved in the final day and deliberation of COP26 said that COP27 has already started. That is what we are trying to do in the committee, as we are trying to look to the future. Going back to your local government, because I wanted to talk about energy, and what I was going to suggest to Liam Kerr all on is that we need to look more closely at what is happening in local government. Just last week, if I can check back on my notes, I read some really encouraging news from North Ayrshire Council about the plans that they have in terms of their solar farms and other renewable projects, and they are saying that, between their solar and winter buying projects, that could potentially generate 277 per cent of North Ayrshire's future energy demand. That would make North Ayrshire a net exporter of excess renewable energy to help to decarbonise the electricity. So there is some really good innovative stuff happening out there, but what we have heard from local government during our inquiry so far is that resources is an issue. We are looking at what other means of finance exists for local government. We all need to be open-minded on that. I also would commend the chamber a really good report by Unison that was published during COP26 about decarbonising our public services, so we need to look at that too. When I spoke from the front bench for Scottish Labour just before COP26, I said, we must take all necessary steps to secure a just transition to net zero in Scotland, so that no individual family or community is left behind. That was in our amendment that day, and I think that that is a good note to end on, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call Paul McLennan to be followed by Mark Ruskell up to four minutes please, Mr McLennan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the net zero committee for bringing forward this debate today. I am grateful because I intend to give this speech highlighting exciting opportunities in my constituency. East Lothian has in Scotland's net zero ambitions and our journey towards a just transition. In November 2021, the long-awaited COP26 climate summit in Glasgow ended, making important progress in a number of areas. The importance of capping temperatures increases at 1.5 degrees is now no longer questioned. As a nation, Scotland needs to deliver on our commitments. Given how significant emission rates from built environments alone are, it is clear that Scotland will struggle to reach net zero by 2045 without accelerated change. East Lothian has already initiated a retrofit in East Lothian's steering group. That group has already met and is lazing with East Lothian Council, local business and Scottish Government agencies looking at opportunities already. Partnership working, including Scottish Government, local government, local business and NGOs, will help us to deliver solutions tailored to meet local circumstances. As MSPs, we need to lead, not just grumble. Local authorities will be particularly important in ensuring a just transition to net zero. My constituency, East Lothian, has huge opportunities as we move towards our just transition. The former site of Cackenzie Power Station and Current Tourness Power Station both have unique grid connection access points. In December last year, Scottish Government ministers approved a marine licence application for the 36 turbine sea green, one-year offshore wind proposal brought forward by SSC and Total Energy. A discussion followed by unanimous support for the sea green on-shore proposals at Cackenzie power site by East Lothian Councils in August 2021. National and local government are working together to deliver the kind of change that we need to see happen if we are serious about reaching net zero by 2045. That sea green project will be capable of generating around about 5,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy a year. To put that into context, it will be clean and sustainable and interested to power more than 1.6 million ohms and save around about 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually. The Cackenzie substation can create numerous opportunities, not only in the actual construction but also in the fabrication of the component parts. We are already engaging with the company in that regard. Local business and people will benefit from opportunities such as the provision of plant and materials and other services such as accommodation and food for the site operatives. Again, discussions are under way in that regard. Those are opportunities for one project in East Lothian alone. Next Friday, I am hosting an East Lothian energy meeting with the likes of Total, SSE, EDF, Scottish Power, Scottish Gats, Inch Cape Offshore, SDS, Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Engineering, local colleges and, of course, East Lothian Council. All those companies that I mentioned are engaging regarding projects in East Lothian. The focus of the meeting will be around developing maximising opportunities for sustainable long-term employment, including local apprenticeship opportunities, and exploring supply chain development and manufacturing development. As Tornes moves towards decommissioning, we need to ensure that the transition to renewable sources of energy is managed and provides opportunities for many years to come for the highly-skilled workforce. A just transition must be just that. I am committed and dedicated to the work with renewables industry. National and local government to ensure that East Lothian becomes a renewable energy hub in terms of grid connection, the highly-skilled workforce alongside a strong supply chain and manufacturing base. Innovative storage technology companies such as Sunamp and my constituency offer up other exciting new possibilities. Carbon capture and hydrogen opportunities also offer exciting opportunities in East Lothian. Scotland is ready a world leader in renewables. I mean to all to ensure to build on that. East Lothian is incredibly well-placed to play its part in the challenges that we face as we move towards COP 27. There are significant opportunities for Scotland to do well globally in finding solutions. East Lothian will play its part. 8 months to go till COP 27 and keeping 1.5 alive has never looked more fragile. With a cost of living crisis fuelled by soaring oil and gas prices and war, it has never been more important to deliver safe, stable energy supplies and a safe climate. However, what we have seen instead over the past 100 days has been a doubling down on maximum economic recovery of fossil fuels and dependence building even further at a time when the just transition needs to accelerate. Despite investors walking away from cambo, there has been a disastrous expansion of oil and gas licences in the North Sea. Remember that this is happening in the face of what the International Energy Agency said before COP 26, that there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal. It has not changed its position on that fact. I am really short for time, but I will take Mr Whittle. I am very grateful for the member to take an intervention. I do agree with him that he said that there is no more oil and gas, but that was before we got to a position where we are no longer Europe and the world and no longer want to take oil and gas from Russia. As we transition towards renewable energy, we are going to still require oil and gas, and that has to be replaced somewhere. Why shouldn't it be from Scotland? We already have more oil and gas in the North Sea that we can afford to burn. If you look at the responsive Governments across Europe, they are recognising that their dependency on oil and gas is a problem. They are not looking for other sources, they are looking to reduce their dependency on oil and gas for the sake of the climate, for the sake of energy security. What we have also seen in recent months is a rejection of a windfall tax in the UK, even though oil and gas companies in the North Sea are making £44,000 a second in profits. The very companies that benefited from billions of tax subsidies in previous years are now looking to deepen our dependence on oil and gas, while ordinary people shiver in fuel poverty. Of course, we had the IPCC report last week that described us as an atlas of human suffering by the Secretary General of the UN. That is exactly where we are heading unless we can decisively turn the corner now. To stop the Glasgow agreement withering away, we need more progress on finance from the UK presidency. So far, the $100 billion fund for loss and damage that was first floated at Paris remains undelivered. That is a real stain on all our consciences. I hope that the first COP to be held in Africa will focus the agenda on how we can repay our debt. What little time I have left, I would like to focus on the Scottish Government. There is much in the Scottish Government's climate programmes that has already put us on a faster route to net zero, pushing beyond the UK climate change committee's pathways from an ambitious heat and building strategy to reducing vehicle mileage, a surge in tree planting and wind power targets. The challenge now for the Scottish Government is to flesh out the detail of that delivery and financing, a point that was made by Dean Lockhart. I agree with Monica Lennon that there are no comfort zones for any Government to sit in, and both the UK climate change committee and our own climate assembly have highlighted areas for faster and more radical change, including in the areas of aviation, peatland restoration and diet change. The climate assembly in particular has given a mandate to the Scottish Government to go further, and ministers should grasp that. Introducing carbon food labelling and action plan for reducing air miles, stronger support for peatland restoration and blue carbon is all needed. It is clear that business as usual will lead us down a road of no return. It is the job of this Parliament to challenge Governments to get on the best pathway to real zero. I look forward to working with the NZ Committee on that mission. I now call Stephanie Callaghan, who is joining us remotely to be followed by Brian Whittle. Up to four minutes, please, Ms Callaghan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is only nine months until COP 27, when the goals set in Glasgow will be revisited and the baton handed over to Egypt. For me, the road to COP 27 requires leadership, partnership and investment in our touch on each of those. Throughout COP 26, Scotland led the way in amplifying the voices of our generation, and the Scottish Government was a bridge between the voiceless and decision makers. Powerful might have left Glasgow, but Scotland is still that bridge, and we must use the respect we garnered in Glasgow to ensure commitments have delivered. Scotland was praised for our leadership in dedicating £2 million to a loss in damage fund and committing to a world at first, a £36 million climate justice fund. There are still some who ask, you know, why send money to the other side of the world when we are dealing with a cost of loving crisis at home. Let us not forget the unifying message that we heard in Glasgow because we are all in this together. From Bell Hill to Bangladesh and Oddingston to Uganda, none of us are safe until we are all safe. Climate justice, Presiding Officer, means acknowledging that our fellow humans are just that. They are human like you and me, and leadership means setting aside arbitrary borders and acting as one planet. That brings me on to partnership. Covid has illustrated really well the very real power of partnership with scientists around the globe harnessing their astonishing talents to create vaccines in a previously unimaginable timeline. That is the kind of dynamism and urgency that we need ahead of COP 27. However, partnership globally must be matched by partnership locally too, and the building blocks to Scotland's climate response exists in our own communities. Our local people need to understand the causes and impacts of climate change and how they can work individually and collectively to prepare for the solution. I hope that business is through, but not all of us. ACS has pulled in on my constituents. They are the real climate champions, the most important issue in the fashion industry, the second biggest pot in the earth, for bringing big brands into the circular economy through resale and reuse. ACS has already operated a carbon neutral business, and they aim to be net zero by 2025, and their innovation, initiative and ideas convince me that they will succeed at that. Such businesses show as I yell brick road if you like to COP 27, and we must learn from them, nurture them and widely share their innovation success. Partnerships are also a bit listening, and now more than ever every voice is valid and every innovation transferable. As we seek to address this climate emergency together, it is critical to include our young people. Those will make who will need to live longest with any decisions that we make. I am looking forward to joining high school students from Huddleston and Baleshill constituency next week for our first sustainability forum, so I will be listening to their views, concerns and their ideas, and I know that they will be shaping my actions in this chamber and government. Coming to investment, we must learn from history too, as we transform our economy to protect our planet. Bacterism is a devastating coal mine in communities like Lanarkshire in the 80s and 90s, and under-employment and health inequality is still longer today. However, today's Scottish Government is not repeating those mistakes and applauding them for working in concert with businesses and unions to invest in skilled green jobs. Presiding Officer, the task ahead can feel really overwhelming, especially with the pandemic, horrors rewarding Ukraine, cost-of-loving crisis at home, and these are all pressing and urgent matters for government, but they cannot steer us off the path to COP 27. The science is really clear. 2020 was Europe's hottest year in the record. Australia recorded its warmest day ever, and it is only by accelerating climate action that COP 26 can be judged as a success. We need leadership, partnership and investment. Thank you. I now call Brian Whittle, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Whittle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think in truth that it will be some time before we are in a position to fully appreciate what the implications of COP 26 are for Scotland and for the transition towards a greener globe are. Do you think that the science is promising, though, in spite of the ever-growing challenges of Covid and the inevitable geopolitical tensions, especially when we look across Europe, which always seem to play a role in such events? Countries around the world agreed deals on methane, coal and deforestation to name but a few. In the few minutes that I have, I want to focus on a couple of issues, the first one being education skills. I think that we, on these benches, are keen to see Scotland develop a position in the renewable sector that is as substantial, if not more so, than the one that we have in oil and gas. That means not only leading in technological innovation but also on the scaling up and manufacturing of those technologies, where we are yet to see that education system reflect that opportunity and need, as was highlighted by Dean Lockhart. I think that the SNP and Greens are quick to talk about how many homes we want to move to heat pumps in the coming years. That not only means making the pumps themselves more affordable, but it also means dramatically increasing the number of engineers that are qualified to install and maintain them. Let us not forget, as Dean Lockhart said, that there are 200,000 a year required to hit that target. This is an attainment gap that the Scottish Government is just not closing. The second green opportunity that I want to highlight is food production, processing, consumption and waste. That has spoken many times that the high-quality food of our farmers should be making a short journey to the plates and schools, hospitals, prisons and every council canteen. It can be done. East Ayrshire are the exemplars that are no excuses. Instead, we often import far too many often inferior products and we send our produce out of the country to be processed, contributing to distances travelled and a significant carbon footprint. What is more, the food that we waste globally contributes four times as much greenhouse gas than the entire global aviation industry? If it were a country, it would be the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and the USA. I will give way. I thank the member for giving way on that point. I recognise that he is passionate about reducing food waste, but would he also reflect on the recommendations of the UK Climate Change Committee, which is that we need a 20 per cent reduction in meat and dairy consumption to have any chance of meeting our climate targets? It seems to be a real elephant in the room. I will come on to this. The way that we blame our farmers for pollution pales into insignificance when we require a land mass the size of China to produce the amount of food that we waste. That is something that we could definitely do about right now, instead of listening to a noisy minority. There must be a Parliament where we start to deliver if we are going to have any hope of reaching those targets, both for 2030 and 2045. We must give the public confidence that the changes that they face are not only necessary but thought through and practical. What we have heard from Government Minister Patrick Harvie is a pronouncement on the need to ban drive-through fast food outlets to reduce emissions. Aside from the carbon reductions from that being astonishingly marginal, I fear to see how making it harder to buy a McFlurry is going to encourage the public to buy into the Government's plans to tackle climate change. Amid all the target setting in grand pledges on climate change, we should remember that no amount of rhetoric will actually reduce our emissions. I think that if self-congratulatory statements about world-leading targets was a carbon negative activity, I think that Patrick Harvie and Michael Matheson would have already single-handedly decarbonised most of the developed world. We can have all the targets that we want, but the only targets that matter are the ones with a route map to achieving them, and that, Presiding Officer, is what is lacking from all the Scottish Government co-ing. We will now move to the closing speeches. I call on Mercedes Villalba to close for Scottish Labour up to four minutes, please. Today's debate has rightly focused on the further action that is needed to tackle the climate emergency following COP26 and as we look ahead to COP27 later this year. My colleague Colin Smyth pointed out that we need to reduce emissions in those sectors of the economy where they remain stubbornly high, like domestic transport. We have heard from Tess White about concerns about the pace of transition away from fossil fuels. We in Labour believe that we need investment in both the production and distribution of renewable energy through the creation of an asset-owning, publicly-owned energy company. We have heard from Paul McLennan that we need MSPs who act and don't just grumble, but we also need ministers who act and who won't crumble under pressure from industry lobbying. That means working with trade unions, representing workers in carbon-intensive sectors to create well-paid, secure green jobs. I represent offshore oil and gas workers in the northeast, so I understand the importance of delivering those well-paid and secure green jobs as part of a worker-led transition. Those workers are being left in a position that sees their transferable skills go unrecognised. At great personal expense, they are often asked to duplicate skills and qualifications that they already have. The sector's major training bodies have failed to agree common standards, leading to the development of rival standards and training modules and qualifications. That market failure cannot continue to go unchallenged by Government at the expense of workers. That is why I have been working with Friends of the Earth Scotland and the RMT to push the Scottish Government to commit to supporting an offshore training passport, at least in principle. The First Minister welcomed the idea of an offshore training passport as a constructive proposal when I first raised it with her back in September. Yet, despite repeated questioning and correspondence, ministers have refused to commit to supporting an offshore training passport even in principle. They have continued to avoid responsibility to address the issue of skills transferability in the offshore energy sector, suggesting that it is an issue to be resolved by industry. However, that is a position that completely ignores the current market failure, which is preventing oil and gas workers transitioning into greener jobs. When I asked the Scottish Government whether it had engaged with the UK Government and other international parties on the issue of skills transferability at COP26, I was told that no specific conversations on the issue had taken place. I cannot think of a better time than COP26 to have tried to make progress on an issue so vital to delivering a just transition. In the wake of COP26, SNP MPs were given the opportunity to vote in favour of action on skills transferability for oil and gas workers in Westminster, but they abstained. The Scottish Government's warm words on the need for a just transition aren't being matched by any practical actions. I was due to meet the green skills minister last week to discuss this issue. It wasn't an easy meeting to secure, yet it was postponed with just a day's notice. The postponement was apparently due to the minister awaiting a significant update and wanting to share substantial progress. The minister is here today. Would she like to share any of this progress with us? Hang on a second. The member is about to conclude. You've got two seconds left. Okay, I'll be happy to hear from the minister at another time. I'd also like, finally, to get a commitment to support an offshore training passable, at least in principle, minister, because in the wake of COP26, as we head towards COP27, we have an opportunity to demonstrate Scotland's climate justice underpinned by social and economic justice. Thank you, minister, but you're all for your time. The time for a green industrial revolution is now. Please take your seats. Can I now call Graham Simpson to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives up to five minutes, please, Mr Simpson? I hear what you're saying, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's been a very odd debate in some ways. There's no motion. There's no committee report to base it on. Even the title of the debate changed at one point. However, we do know that it's about climate change, and we've had some really good contributions from across the chamber, and I'll try to cover as many as possible. Let me start with Brian Whittle, if I may. Brian Whittle mentioned the need to upskill the workforce. He mentioned quite rightly that we don't have enough engineers to install some of the new technologies, and he spoke about something that he's really passionate about, which is food and food waste, and his belief that local is best. He's absolutely right about that. Speaking of waste, Siobhan Brown mentioned fly tipping and recycling. Really good topic to mention. I would just say to Siobhan Brown, she might want to get behind calls to have a moratorium on incinerators, something that I know Monica Lennon is passionate about. COP26 should be remembered for what was actually achieved. There were some major steps forward on a basket of key climate issues. More than 100 countries signed a pledge to halt and reverse deforestation. At least 40 countries agreed to stop using coal, while leaders signed a pledge to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Now, all that sounds good, but of course Colin Smith said, that's all very well, but we need to see delivery. We need to see substance over spin, and I agree with him. So while the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees is alive, it is only just alive and it will depend on what countries around the world do. Not just us. Some speakers have mentioned the transport sector, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and here I think the approach of the SNP green government is disappointing. It is more stick than carrot. They seem to have declared war on drivers. They don't seem to want to deliver what is actually needed, which is better public transport. And I see that Minister Lorna Slater shaking her head. If she's disagreeing with that, perhaps she could bring forward the provisions in the Transport Act 2019, mentioned by Colin Smith, that would allow councils to run municipal bus services in their own patch. And that would, I think, deliver a step change in public transport, get people out of cars, which I assume Lorna Slater wants. But for some reason, there is dithering on government on that point. Now, Liam Kerr, in his excellent wide-ranging speech, spoke of the oil and gas sector. He spoke of how, if you want to end our reliance on oil and gas, you need to say how and when you will achieve that. And so far, the SNP and their partners in government have not answered that point. Tess White made exactly the same point and spoke of the folly of turning our backs on the North Sea. You'd expect her to say that, given her background. Mr Kerr also quite rightly mentioned some of the contradictions in government policy. Finlay Carson, in another excellent contribution, as a committee convener, spoke about agriculture. And he also mentioned aquaculture. We probably don't speak about these things often enough in this chamber. I'm going to rattle through some of the other contributions. Monica Lennon wants us all to work together. Well, that would be great, I have to say. She spoke about local government, the need to resource local government properly. It's not. She knows that as a former councillor. Same as myself. We need more resources for local government. Paul MacLennan, he spoke about work in his own area, rightly so. There's some good stuff there. Mark Ruskell, my good friend Mark Ruskell, unfortunately is in denial on the oil and gas sector. Stephanie Callaghan, speaking remotely, spoke about the fashion industry and the need to reuse materials. She's quite right. I've been buying second hand clothes all my life. But now we have apps like Depop. I would recommend it to members that a lot of young people are using. All in all, Presiding Officer, it's been a good debate, but there is a lot of work we need to do to deliver on the actions agreed at COP26. Thank you, and I now call on Minister Lorna Slater to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government up to six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased and honoured to be closing this debate today on behalf of the Scottish Government, and thank you very much to all colleagues for their contributions. I think that we can all agree in several members, Colin Smyth, Liam McArthur, Monica Lennon, that the outcome of COP26 was not what the world needed. I remember that Alex Sharma delivered his closing speech in tears. Island nation leaders devastated by the future that will see their nations submerged. Colin Smyth was quite right to challenge the world to keep the dream of 1.5 alive. Liam McArthur is right to hold the Scottish Government to account on our missed targets, as did Liam Kerr. We are concerned about this, and as recently as this October put together a plan exactly how we plan to catch up on those targets. Liam Kerr asked a sensible question about how much energy do we need, and where is that energy going to come from? What sources and how much can demand be reduced through insulation and other efficiency savings? The answer will come from our updated energy strategy, which is a comprehensive review of that, and will answer those questions in further detail for all of us. Natalie Donne was quite right to emphasise that those who suffer most from climate change are the ones who have done the least to cause it. She is also absolutely right to highlight that young people have been leading the way on these matters, and I would like to take this moment to thank all the climate strikers, the stop cambo protesters and all the young people who have powerfully made their voices heard. Keep it up, the world needs you. Tess White will be interested in a study that came out today that shows that insulation and heat pumps can deliver UK energy security more quickly than domestic gas fields. I encourage her to read that study. I am very grateful. I will put the same question to the minister that I put to her colleague Mark Russell and the cabinet secretary. When does she envisage that renewables will cover the demand so that we do not need oil and gas, whether imported or domestic? As I said just a minute ago, Mr Kerr asks a very sensible question. This question will be answered by our updated energy strategy. We need to assess this, although work is under way. I look forward as much as he does to seeing that. Tess White, as I say, would be interested in that study, but I am slightly concerned that the member is in favour of the extinction of the human race. I will remind her of the context. If she is against extinction rebellion, will the context of global heating, at six degrees of warming, it is estimated that 95 per cent of life on earth will be extinct, only at transition away from fossil fuels. Urgent action to remove carbon already in the atmosphere will save us from this fate. Finlay Carson. The Quiet Greenpeace does not get Scotland. I am afraid that I am not familiar with the incident of which the member refers. Mark Ruskell is correct that there can be no more oil and gas exploration. Our European colleagues are reacting to the situation in Ukraine and the dangers to our energy security of Russian gas by accelerating decarbonisation of their energy systems. With Siobhan Brown, I agree that climate friendly is business friendly. There are exciting opportunities in the circular economy, reducing business costs through reducing waste and recognising the value of materials that we currently throw away. Genuinely grateful to the minister for taking another intervention. Last month, it was announced that the Treasury would review the Solvency 2 regime into low-carbon infrastructure investments following Brexit. Does the minister welcome that review? I am afraid that I do not have an answer to that question right now. I am not familiar with that particular review. I am going to press on. Both Siobhan Brown and Stephanie Callahan will be excited to hear about my work and our work in the Scottish Government on the extended producer responsibility scheme. I have been corresponding with the UK on this this week, working towards a scheme that would incentivise producers to use more easily recyclable materials in their packaging, as well as get them to contribute financially to the reduction of waste. This is a significant initiative that we will see coming through in the next few years. Monica Lennon and Paul MacLennan are very keen to support local government, particularly in implementing circular economy measures. I am excited to hear from both of them about the local energy projects in energy generation and storage. As a concern about running out of time, I will jump ahead to Ms Viaba's point. I thank Ms Viaba for the point. I agree with her on this very important issue. I am very sorry that I delayed our meeting. It is because there is work being done in this area by Opeta, who I did meet with, although not during COP when I was very busy also had Covid. The reason I delayed our meeting is because this month I am expecting a report from Opeta with significant progress on towards an offshore passport. I want to meet with the member that is not the language that they are using, but a communication of standards to allow the transferability of workers. I will, as soon as I have that report, share that with the member so that we can discuss it together and she can see whether she is satisfied with the progress. I think I am out of time. I am very sorry. I will jump ahead to my final remarks. The Scottish Government will continue our focus on delivery of our ambitious climate policies from implementing our recently published hydrogen action plan to updating our energy strategies. All of our policies will carry the theme of a fair and just transition while also looking ahead to the next full climate change plan, which we have committed to bringing forward a draft to in the first half of this parliamentary session. I call Fiona Hyslop to wind up the debate on behalf of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee. This was a bit of a mixed debate. It went from the global to the very local. We heard that COP26 saw imperfect progress as Colin Smyth set out. Success was not a foregone conclusion but positive steps were taken. Science was firmly placed on the agenda and many countries agreed plurilateral initiatives to accelerate action on coal, methane reduction, stopping fossil fuel finance, stopping deforestation and phasing out vehicles with internal combustion engines. For the first time, as Liam McArthur pointed out, the final text at COP26 recognised nature's critical role in tackling the climate emergency and the joint crisis of climate and biodiversity. Myllys is all welcome. Focus must now be given to delivery and implementation. As Melina Merra stated in the committee's post-COP26 evidence session on 16 November, the two weeks saw a barrage of pledges and packs being made to address the nature and climate emergencies. They are welcome but they will remain paper tigers unless parliaments such as the Scottish Parliament enact laws to bring them into the purview of national legislation. To paraphrase Professor Gymsgea to our committee, the Parliament has agreed on world-beating targets and now we need world-beating action to deliver on that. The focus now must be on implementation and delivery. Opposition members rightly care a right to challenge, but they must do so constructively. Opposition members as well as Government members must stretch themselves out of any comfort zone when it comes to the climate emergency. Monica Lennon is right to stress the expectation of the public for co-operation in this place to deliver and with local government. Paul McLaren spoke of MSPs all needing to lead. So Scotland can and must lead by example by sharing our knowledge and expertise, our successes as well as our failures. No Government in the world has done enough and time is not on our side. The climate emergency has begun, the world is already burning, flooding and humanity is on red alert. During COP26, I met Maranel Ubu, a youth climate justice advocate from the Philippines. In this chamber, in November, in a debate on the conclusions of the Glasgow climate dialogues community, I spoke about Maranel's harrowing experience of super typhoon Haiyan in 2013, where she sadly lost relatives and friends and was left without food or water. Only weeks after COP26, another devastating super typhoon Rai hit the Philippines. Maranel emailed me saying, from the communities to the national level, we are crying for funding for loss and damage and this typhoon just showed how urgent it is already for our global leaders to already put loss and damage on the priority agenda. Climate change is here, climate change is now. Natalie Dawn referenced Scotland's trembling of its world first climate justice fund to £36 million with £2 million for loss and damage. A new-end Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, said at COP26, Scotland is one of the first international actors that has determined money for loss and damage. That is a very important point for developing countries and so I would like to say how much I appreciate Scottish effort in this regard. So loss and damage is expected to be a COP27 focus and it must be, as the cabinet secretary told us. Climate change funding needs improved, a $100 billion target was set 10 years ago and has not been delivered to the global south, as Mark Ruskell stated, and the majority of funding that is coming through is in the form of loans. COP26 saw a last-minute washing down of the language on the co-pledge when India backed China to change the pledge from phasing out of unabated co-to-phase down. It saw India being widely blamed, but as Melina Merra made evident to our committees post COP27, many failed to see the inequality in that by placing intense pressure on countries such as India who have not had the benefits of oil and gas to reduce their reliance on coal and it's not fair, equal or just. It was made clear from almost all the expert witnesses to our committee that India was being more nuanced by trying to achieve equity with the language change. It was a way to try and encourage support from developed countries who are largely responsible for the climate emergency. On private finance, COP26 saw a mobilisation of £95 trillion announced by Mark Carney, who chairs the Glasgow financial alliance for net zero, which gathers 450 organisations controlling 40 per cent of global assets. Now, there can be no place for false offsets and double accounting. We don't just want assurance of reductions in emissions, we must see and know that it's actually taking place, so global reporting standards are key. Tackling the climate emergency will hurt, it will be uncomfortable, but it must be a whole system, whole world, whole sector response. Finlay Carson focused on the whole, full system approach needed and what I thought was an exemplar speech for a convener. The dial of the world systems must shift permanently or there will be no clear sight for the future of and permanency of humanity in many parts of the world. The impatience and passion of the climate change activists on the streets of Glasgow reflected that. The frustrations around COP26 were played out as a heightened focus and urgency for COP27 in Egypt later this year. As UN Secretary General said in his closing speech in Glasgow, COP27 starts now. John Kerry launched the US-Egypt climate working groups when he visited Egypt ahead of COP27. He visited there in February and I think that it's quite pertinent that the convener of the committee and both of myself are quoting John Kerry rather than the current COP President Alex Salmer. John Kerry said in February that he asked, will we live up to our most basic responsibility to leave behind a world better than we found it? The jury is still out on that and we have yet to provide the concrete evidence that we will, but we have to look to COP27 with hope and determination. The net zero energy and transport committee will ensure that this Parliament keeps the climate emergency firmly at the top of the agenda. That concludes the debate on the road to COP27 and beyond, tackling the climate emergency in the aftermath of COP26. We'll now move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 3390 on withdrawal of Bill, UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill, and I call on Angus Robertson to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time and there is one decision, one question to be put as a result of today's business, and that question is the motion 3390 in the name of Angus Robertson on withdrawal of Bill, UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting.


So I have four chunks of chords over this rather big chord progression. We start with our tonic chord, then go to the secondary dominant, which can then go and resolve to a diatonic chord, in this case F major. C, C over E, F major, then C, D over F sharp, G, then C, E over G sharp, A minor, which is the relative minor, and then cap it off with going back safely to home. C, G, with the primary dominant G7, C major, C sus 4, C major, it's a nice ending.