Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy, unless Dan has anything more to say.

Thanks for that.

The last area that I want to ask you about is negative emissions technology—comprising bioenergy carbon capture and storage—BECCS. The Climate Change Committee highlighted the continuing uncertainty around that. Around a year or two years ago, it recommended that there should be a plan B, which is very challenging. How do you respond to that?

My understanding is that, in the past, there has been a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Ministry of Defence on a range of areas, most notably environmental compliance, habitats regulations, environmental management and that side of things. Obviously, this strays more into health and safety. It is clear that there is environmental compliance in the Ministry of Defence, but scrutinising that is pretty hard. This is another example of that. Such examples come up from time to time.

Great. I will go back to the points that Phil Raines raised around critical detail, which was a feature of the UK CCC’s comments. Can you give us a bit more explanation? When it comes to the individual policies listed in the climate change plan, will it be really clear what the expected reduction in emissions will be, and what underlying modelling and assumptions have been used? In previous climate change plans it has been almost impossible to see what is going on behind the assumptions, particularly because of the use of the TIMES model. Previous cabinet secretaries have said that it is incredibly complex and they cannot explain it because it is a big computer model.

How clear will the plan be to people looking through it, in particular for sectors that will have to make quite big reductions in emissions and respond to the opportunities around heat and other areas?

Okay. Am I right that its use will be phased out by 2025 anyway?

Does that mean that aviation emissions are going to drop—just as they are going to have to drop on the A9 and A96 and in farming and every other sector of our economy—or are they going to grow?

So it could be that other sectors or other parts of the transport sector might need to have steeper reductions in emissions in order to deliver the benefits that aviation—[Inaudible.]

I will move to Seona Shand, on a similar theme. Reading your submission, it is obvious that there is a lot of excitement among business about the business opportunities of COP28. I think that you say that it is one of the largest global moments. Business will be trying to make sense of those opportunities in the same way that it did with the Dubai Expo 2020.

In relation to the COP process, at one level, COP26 in Glasgow felt like a big trade show. That is not to diminish the importance of that, as it is clearly served an important function, but it raises questions about credibility in relation to the business sector’s engagement in the COP process. It is about where you draw the line. When I was wandering around COP26 and looking the hundreds of stands that there were in Glasgow, I saw some stands from countries that were clearly stretching it in terms of credibility in terms of the kind of businesses that were being presented, the genuine sustainability of some of the offerings and what the countries were wanting to promote from their own individual sectors.

I wonder how you find that line of credibility within Scotland. Is COP28 an opportunity for everybody to come and present their goods and services? Are there particular key themes where the Scottish Government will say, “Look, this is our contribution in relation to climate change in terms of goods and services”, but there may also be others that are more questionable? I certainly saw some questionable promotion at COP26, which was widely described as “greenwashed” by others.

Okay. That is useful.

I will turn to my last question. We received evidence from Scotland’s International Development Alliance in which it proposed extending the outcomes and indicators for how we measure Scotland’s impact in relation to international work. It took a bit more of a wellbeing economy approach in wanting the inclusion of fossil fuel extraction and export, the arms trade, the socioeconomic impact of supply chains and the material footprint of Scotland’s businesses on the rest of the world.

Do you inherently welcome the emerging consensus around the wellbeing economy and what that means, or is it something that your members might have a concern around?

I will go to Gareth Williams first.

Thank you, convener. In recent weeks, the committee has taken a lot of evidence on what makes a good global citizen. The main theme that has come through has been the importance of Scotland’s role as a climate leader and in taking international action on climate change. Credibility is an important part of that. Do the panellists see any inherent contradiction in that?

Much of your written evidence has included comments about international aviation and, for example, the need to increase the number of international flights, open up new routes and increase visitor numbers. That puts us in complete contradiction as regards the work that we are trying to do to show our climate leadership. Without there being a credible path towards developing sustainable aviation fuels, is there not an inherent acknowledgement there that such business growth and international connectivity through aviation will set us against those climate objectives? I am interested in hearing how you would square those aspects.

I think that Vicki Miller said earlier that we are now seeing in the sector a pivot away from domestic tourism and that VisitScotland is very much going to lean into that, in recognition of the fact that that is where the market is going. In switching away from investing in attracting people to holidays at home and really leaning into the international market, do you acknowledge that there are contradictions and potential credibility issues in there? If so, how would you attempt to square them?

Do you want to start, Vicki?