Pressure builds on Scotland to act now on global warmingBy Environment Editor Rob Edwards
In three days time the Scottish Parliament will take the most important decision of its life. Ministers and MSPs will vote on what the nation will do over the next few years to combat one of the greatest threats facing the world.
Most scientists now agree that without urgent action to cut the pollution that is warming the globe, disaster beckons.
Heatwaves, droughts, floods and storms will sweep across continents, killing millions and evicting millions more.
This is the year in which the world will decide, at a summit in Copenhagen in December, how to respond. And this is the week in which Scotland will choose how to help shape the arguments now brewing in London, Brussels, Washington and Beijing.
Alex Salmond and his Scottish Nationalist ministers are adamant that they are crafting a bill to combat climate change that will lead the world in its ambitions. But almost everyone else disagrees, including, most pointedly, an impressive collection of leading climate scientists.
As the Sunday Herald reveals today, 13 experts from major universities and institutions are damning the Scottish government's target to cut emissions by 34% by 2020 as "wholly inadequate". They say that a target of at least 42% is essential to prevent "catastrophic climate change".
The scientists have signed a letter that will deliver a stark warning to Salmond and the other party leaders tomorrow, two days before the Scottish Parliament conducts its final debate on the bill.
"The most recent scientific evidence tells us that the worst-case projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are being realised. There is a significant risk that many trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing possibility of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts," they say.
"The 34% emissions reduction target by 2020 target proposed in the Scottish climate change bill falls far short of what is required to prevent catastrophic climate change. Any delay in delivering effective emissions reduction significantly increases the long-term social and economic costs."
The latest view from the world-leading Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research based in six universities shows a target of at least 42% is needed to give the best chance of avoiding "dangerous climate change", the letter continues. Inaction, it warns, is "inexcusable".
"The current proposal to reduce emissions by just 34% by 2020 is wholly inadequate if this bill is to provide leadership during this important year for climate change," the letter says.
"The bill must be amended to set a target from day one of at least 42% reductions by 2020. We urge you to follow scientific recommendations in order to deliver what is required of the Scottish climate change bill."
The scientists signing the letter include Dr Hugh Montgomery from University College London, Iain Stewart from the University of Plymouth, United Nations adviser Dr Andrew Dlugolecki and the co- chairs of the Climate and Health Council, professor Mike Gill and Dr Robin Stott. Other signatories are professor Peter Smith from the University of Aberdeen, professor Alan Werrity from Dundee University, Dr David Reay from Edinburgh University and Dr Steven Gillespie from the University of Glasgow.
.
The scientists are joining a huge and growing chorus of voices from all sectors of society and all parts of the globe demanding tougher action. Celebrities like singer KT Tunstall and comedian Frankie Boyle are uniting with business leaders like Brendan Dick from BT Scotland and Ian Marchant from Scottish and Southern Energy to call for a 42% target.
They are backed by an unprecedented coalition of environmentalists, politicians, trade unions, students, faith groups, charities and community organisations, representing 40% of Scotland's population, and egged on by countries set to suffer most, like Malawi, Ethiopia and the Maldives.
If Scotland fails to curb carbon emissions from the likes of the coal-fired power station at Cockenzie in East Lothian, poor countries will suffer more hunger and disease. "Rich countries like Scotland must reduce their emissions to help save lives in Malawi," said Michael Marra, from Oxfam Scotland.
Although ministers say they want to follow the science, their promises are not reflected in the wording of the bill, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland coalition chairman Mike Robinson argued. "The overwhelming scientific consensus is 42% by 2020."
The tropics have spread 277 kilometres since 1980 and Arctic sea ice is expected to disappear by 2015. A study last week said Scottish winters could be up to 24% wetter and summers up to 20% drier by 2080, bringing more floods, storms and heatwaves.
"If a country like Scotland cannot set targets which are the very minimum required, how on earth can we expect countries such as China, India and Brazil to do so?" Robinson said. "The world is casting about for leadership. Scotland is well placed to take that lead, to show intent ahead of the negotiations in Copenhagen."
The current draft of the bill sets the target for cutting emissions at 34% by 2020, with the aim of making 80% cuts by 2050. But climate change minister, Stewart Stevenson, said the 2020 target will rise to 42% "should as we hope the European Union agrees to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020".
The Maldives, islands very vulnerable to rising sea levels, plan to become the world's first carbon neutral country in 10 years.
"For all our futures on this planet, I hope other nations follow suit," said the country's president Mohamed Nasheed. "If a small, developing nation can go carbon neutral, what excuse can richer, industrialised countries have for refusing to do the same?"
***
PROBLEM 1: PLAN TO TACKLE POLLUTION FROM OLD POWER STATION 'DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH'
plan to upgrade one's of Scotland's dirtiest old power stations from coal to gas has come under fire for failing to do enough to cut climate pollution and for threatening "environmental carnage".
Spanish-owned ScottishPower has announced a proposal to turn the coal-fired station at Cockenzie in East Lothian into a modern gas-fired plant. Because it is so polluting, the old station has to close by the end of 2015, and the company is now "examining options" for its replacement.
Environmentalists say it may not be necessary to replace Cockenzie, if enough electricity is generated by renewable sources like wind, wave and tidal power. And they point out gas, while less polluting than coal, still results in significant emissions of climate-wrecking carbon.
"Replacing one fossil fuel plant with another is 20th-century logic," said Green MSP, Patrick Harvie. "Ministers and power companies should be drawing on our own clean energy resources rather than making our future dependent on unreliable Russian gas imports."
Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said Scotland shouldn't need electricity from Cockenzie after 2015. "The least damaging power station is one that isn't built at all," he said. "A gas-fired power station at Cockenzie might provide additional security for the Scottish energy system rather than relying on occasional imports of electricity, but it would need to be equipped with carbon capture technology to have any long-term future."
WWF Scotland also argued that, if the plant was to be built, it should capture and store the carbon it produced. "If we are to have a new gas-fired station it should be as efficient as possible," said the environmental group's director, Dr Richard Dixon. "As well as generating electricity it should be making use of the spare heat that it creates for industry or domestic heating."
In East Lothian ScottishPower's plans have caused outrage because they involve running a 17km underground gas pipeline from Cockenzie to East Fortune. The LibDem deputy leader of East Lothian Council, Stuart Currie, was "horrified" at the damage that could be done to such an important area for wildlife and tourism.
"This would bring with it, in my view, environmental carnage that would damage our countryside and ensure that things were never quite the same," he said. "While, of course, local politicians and residents are told not to worry as you'll never notice the pipeline, I simply do not accept that argument."
The government's conservation agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, pointed out the area around the Firth of Forth was protected by national and international laws because of its wildlife. SNH's Ian Rennick said: "Because of this, any environmental effects will have to be carefully considered by all parties before a decision is made."
ScottishPower stressed it was only at the start of a lengthy public consultation process. It hoped to submit a planning application for Cockenzie to the Scottish government "later this year". According to its head of project development, Richard Escott, a gas power station would be 30-40% more efficient than the current coal station.
It would also reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 50%, he said.
***
PROBLEM 2: BP TREE SCHEME A GREENWASH'
ONE of the world's biggest oil multinationals, BP, has been accused of climate "greenwash" for funding a £10 million project to plant trees in Scotland.
Part of BP's investment in a massive 10-year woodland creation scheme has paid for a study to estimate the amounts of carbon stored by the trees. This information could be used by the company to duck responsibility for cutting the carbon pollution caused by its oil business, campaigners say.
The Scottish Forest Alliance, which brings BP together with the government's Forestry Commission, the Woodland Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, is today unveiling its annual results. Since 2000 almost 3.5 million trees have been planted or allowed to regenerate over an area one and a half times the size of Inverness.
The alliance predicts that this will result in the capture, or sequestration, of 377,000 tonnes of carbon over the next 100 years.
This suggests that more than 50 tonnes of carbon pollution could be "offset" by planting a hectare of woodland.
But Corinne Evans, of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "Even if the whole of Scotland was covered in forests this would make only a tiny dent in the carbon emissions of a company like BP."
BP said: "We support legislation and international co-operation to address the issue of climate change, while at the same time focusing on the operational energy efficiency of our businesses."
