ENVIRONMENT Secretary Roseanna Cunningham has insisted she is “pretty confident” Scotland can hit its climate change targets – despite expert advisers insisting they are on the “fringes of credibility”.
Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) advisory body, has already told MSPs there are concerns over whether targets on cutting emissions can be met.
The CCC had recommended setting the goal of cutting emissions by 70% by 2030 with the Scottish Parliament then voting to go further and fixing a 75% target.
Stark told Holyrood’s Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee: “In terms of the credibility of the plan, I think it’s on the fringes of credibility but so too is the Scottish 2030 target itself.”
But Cunningham told the committee: “I am not entirely sure I would get terrible stressed by Chris Stark’s comments.
“The Committee on Climate Change, our statutory advisers, recommended 70% by 2030. We chose to go beyond that to 75%.
“It would have been remarkable if Chris Stark had come to the committee and said ‘oh well now you mention it 75% is OK, we were wrong’.”
In that respect, the Environment Secretary insisted Stark’s remarks were “absolutely predictable”.
Cunningham was speaking as she was questioned by MSPs on the Scottish Government’s updated climate change plan, which was published in December and which sets out what ministers insist are “bold actions” aimed at helping meet emissions reduction targets in the period to 2032.
The plan sets out for the distance travelled in car journeys to be cut by a fifth by 2030, and promises £180 million in funding for carbon capture and hydrogen technologies as well as £120m towards zero-emission buses.
But environmental campaigners at Friends Of The Earth Scotland have already accused ministers of “flawed thinking” and “unjustified optimism” over the proposals, which are meant to help the country achieve net-zero emissions by 2045.
Cunningham however told the committee she was “pretty confident” about hitting the targets.
She said: “Obviously the plan has been drafted against an extraordinary set of circumstances and has been done at haste, it is an update to an actual plan.
“I believe given that the CCC recommendation, originally for 70% by 2030 and that particular target was considered by them to be just about feasible, they felt they had recommended the most stretching target, and given the Parliament then effectively unanimously decided to go further than that, right from the start we have probably been in somewhat uncharted territory.
“We are however confident that this package does present a credible pathway to the envelopes, bearing in mind all the significant uncertainties there are, there are limits to devolution, there is technological advancement which without a crystal ball we can never be certain about, there is just transition, fuel poverty.
“Indeed there are still scientific uncertainties in the measuring of emissions.”
But she told the committee ministers “do believe what is in front of you provides a strong foundation, sets a pathway to 2032 and contributes to net zero by 2045”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here