Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. I think that you are advising decarbonisation in non-residential buildings earlier than in residential buildings. Will you explain that?

I perhaps take a different view, convener. To me, the 6 per cent figure sounds pretty pitiful, to be honest. As someone who lives in a rural area, I could quite easily reduce my mileage by 6 per cent just by organising my day a little bit better, by joining up with other families when taking my kids to activities, for example.

I think that Eoin Devane is making a point about the real reduction coming from urban areas, but in the CCC’s advice, I do not see what the game changer could be if we are to significantly reduce vehicle mileage. For example, some cities in Europe have completely free public transport systems. If that is put in place and funded through congestion charges, could that result in a much greater reduction—say, 30 per cent—in vehicle mileage in urban areas? It could mean that there simply would be no point in driving any more if people are charged to drive but had a completely free, well-funded public transport system.

I feel that we are in a climate emergency. What is the game changer here? Many projects have been tried across Europe, and you have collated some of the best practice on that. However, none of this feels like the big, big shift that is needed. If we are sitting here debating a 6 per cent reduction—or one journey in every 20—that does not really feel to me like a shift in behaviour. I know that I am being provocative, but I am interested in finding out what the big ideas are that could really shift things fairly and in a way that actually benefits people.

Convener, can I move on to ask about heat?

The closure of the Grangemouth refinery was regrettable for jobs and perhaps was a failure of the operators to put in place a just transition that was led by workers up front. Given that that is now happening, have you factored it into your budget calculations? There are other industrial plants that may close as well. For example, decisions may or may not be made about Peterhead, including the on-going continued operation of Peterhead 1 while Peterhead 2 is being built. What are you factoring into your budgets in terms of those proposed closures?

I am interested in your thoughts on how the market is changing, in particular for livestock. I talk to farmers and estate owners who are actively selling on to natural capital companies, pension funds and others who have ambitions for woodland creation, commercial forestry, peatland restoration and renewables.

I am not sure whether you will want to comment on this, but the Government probably has a political difficulty in providing a target for livestock reduction. To what extent is it implicit in the way that the market is going that there will be a livestock reduction anyway because, although it is still early days for them, the market in woodland creation and natural capital is clearly going to grow over time? Is there a bit of smoke and mirrors involved in the Government saying, “We are not going to reduce livestock numbers”, while the reduction is implicit in everything else—it will happen anyway? It feels a bit like what you said about diet. Nobody wants to call it and say, “We are going to be eating less meat”, because that might sound extreme, but it is happening anyway.

I just wonder about transparency and how the role of markets and the trends relate to livestock. Are we afraid of calling something that is happening anyway?

But surely, if you have a scrappage scheme in place next year, you will be able to move faster than if you wait, say, up to 15 years for the natural life of a boiler to come to its end.

Do you think that scrappage schemes more broadly have a role to play here, within both the public sector and the private sector?

So you really see the reduction in electricity price as a trigger, whether it is for transport, for home heating or for people shifting over to electrifying technology. At the moment, we are not quite there in terms of a market signal being sent to consumers that it is obvious that they should switch to an electric vehicle and an air-source heat pump.

You set out very clearly that you are disappointed that the Scottish Government abandoned its proposals for the regulations to upgrade properties at the point of sale as part of the heat in buildings bill. Can you say what impact that decision might have on that pathway for decarbonising heat? If the Government sticks with that position after the election and does not put the measure back into the bill, what else can it do to speed things up and grow that market more quickly?

But is that not the fundamental problem with the balanced pathway? It assumes the status quo and that we have a way of working within our society. We have a structural dependence on car use; car use is much cheaper than public transport use; and there is nothing that fundamentally alters that balance. At the end of the day, the question is: what will actually convince people to leave the car keys at home and to get on a bus or a train? The policy on peak fares and all the other measures are fantastic—indeed, my party has been pushing for them in this Parliament—but where is the fundamental shift that is needed? When I look at the balanced pathway, I do not really see much hope of getting big reductions in carbon emissions from different sectors, unless that fundamental change happens. It just feels as though we are managing some carbon reductions within the status quo, instead of thinking outside the box and saying, “Well, these are the really big options for change that have to be fair, but which could ultimately benefit people.”