Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will say a little bit and I will then bring in the cabinet secretary. The evidence that we have heard has been particularly interesting. At the moment, I do not know in my mind—and as a parliamentarian, as the deputy convener said—whether we need to weaken or strengthen the commitments that the cabinet secretary will be making, because we have not seen the climate change plan that will be produced.

There is an issue in my mind about developing our understanding of what is achievable, which is not only about the commitment of individuals or of Government but is about the cost of that and how we will achieve it. I take the point on the importance of electrification, but during the process of hearing about it, especially today, I have found it very difficult to stomach simply saying that the cost of doing nothing is too high. To my mind, that is lazy and slightly rude to the individuals who are trying to question it.

With the way that the vote will go today, carbon budgets will probably go through. I may be proved wrong—[Interruption.] I will finish on this point. They will probably go through, but I want to register my dissatisfaction with the whole process of how that has come about. The committee should have been discussing the matter much earlier. I have always made it clear—people who have spoken to me will support me on this—that I do not like and have never liked the fact that we are doing this in the last months of the parliamentary session. It is far too important a matter for us to get it wrong. When it comes to the vote, I will abstain, not because I want to frustrate the budgets, but because I want to register my dissatisfaction at how the process has gone.

Cabinet secretary, I give you the opportunity to sum up if you wish.

Good morning and welcome to the 26th meeting in 2025 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

I have received apologies from Monica Lennon, and I welcome her substitute, Sarah Boyack, to the meeting.

The first item on the agenda is an evidence session on the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Scottish Carbon Budgets) Amendment Regulations 2025. The regulations set the target levels for four five-year carbon budgets from 2026 to 2045, which is the statutory date for Scotland reaching net zero.

I hope that the first panel can help the committee to understand the bigger picture on the global and national challenge behind the rather abstract numbers that are set out in the regulations, the latest on the science of climate change, and what we need to do to prepare for climate change and adapt to it here in Scotland.

Last week, we took evidence from the Climate Change Committee on its advice, which informed the regulations. Today, we will hear from a panel of academic experts on the science of climate change and its impacts, before hearing from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy. We will consider the formal motion on the instrument under the next agenda item.

I am pleased to welcome Professor Gabi Hegerl, professor of climate systems science at the University of Edinburgh, and Professor Fabrice Renaud, professor of environmental risk and community resilience and the director of the national centre for resilience at the University of Glasgow. I also welcome Dr Andrew Russell, the director of the environmental change and communities research centre, and Dr Ellie Murtagh, a postdoctoral researcher at Maynooth University. Thank you all for joining us.

We have a huge amount of ground to cover this morning with this panel and the next. We definitely want to hear from you, but I encourage members and witnesses to make crisp contributions so that we can get through all the subject areas that we want to, because there are quite a few of them.

Before I move to questions, and just in case it comes up, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests that I am a member of a family farming partnership in Moray, where we grow crops and breed cattle for beef production.

The first questions this morning come from Mark Ruskell.

Just to help me, when people are in the room, what usually happens is that everyone looks away and does not want to answer the question, and I pick the last one to look away. Unfortunately, that does not quite work when you are online, because you are all staring intently at the camera. If you want to answer a question, put your hand up or even just wave at me or the person asking the question, and they will bring you in. There you go. You have got your first wave, Mark.

Ellie Murtagh, do you want to come in? You sort of nodded; it is dangerous to nod if you do not want to come in. No one else wants to come in, Mark.

Mark Ruskell wants to come in with a supplementary, but I want to push a little bit on this. We seem to be pushing quite hard to develop wind farms on the very peatlands that we are trying to protect. We are shoving tonnes and tonnes of concrete into the peatlands, which destroys their attributes as sponges, and there is faster runoff along the tracks that are created to the wind farms. That is then supplemented by steel pylon lines that go across the Highlands, and battery storage plants that are reliant on minerals being mined in fairly dubious areas of the world. My question to you, Fabrice, is simple. When we are doing that, are we balancing the benefits with the cost to the environment? It seems to many people that we are not.

I have been listening to what has been said and am interested in the costs. Ellie Murtagh suggested there is a need for faster action on domestic consumption, housing and travel, and Gabi Hegerl said that we must act faster if we are to stay below a 2° increase. Andrew Russell said that we must act now to prevent chronic problems from developing later, and Fabrice Renaud suggested making everything more self-sufficient. We have heard lots of suggestions and ideas.

Kevin Stewart suggested that we must make the changes more appealing to individuals and that they must be able to understand them, which I totally agree with; however, for people to understand the appeal, they have to understand how much it will cost. You do not plan for a boiler repair or replacement; when it happens, you have to do it pretty quickly because you need hot water.

You, as scientists and experts, have come up with all those plans. You must have worked out how much it will cost per household to deliver what you want to deliver or, if not, you must at least have a good idea of what it will cost, otherwise you will not be able to enthuse people. Do I have that totally wrong? Do you have an idea of what it will cost people in Scotland to get to net zero by 2045? The Government has an idea, but how much will it actually cost people?

I put that to you, Andrew Russell, because you did not look away quickly enough.

I am going to move on to Sarah Boyack, but I will say that last week, we heard the argument that a lot of people, including me, will be long gone by the time we have recouped our investment. I am investing for a future that I will not be here to see, but there is nothing wrong with that.

That sounds like an advertisement. On that note, I move to Bob Doris for his questions.

No, I am not going to blame deer for everything again.

The Climate Change Committee made it clear that a huge amount needs to be done, some of which is devolved and some of which is reserved. How are you getting on with the UK Government to resolve the conflict that there might be between reserved and devolved matters?