Scotland has finally produced realistic short-term plans on cutting its climate emissions, but there is “real concern” about the credibility of its overall strategy, the UK’s climate policy watchdog has found.
Nigel Topping, the chair of the UK Climate Change Committee, said there were “flashing amber lights” about the quality and seriousness of some of the Scottish government’s medium- and long-term proposals to reach net zero by 2045.
He said the committee was “really pleased” that in November last year the devolved government in Edinburgh replaced its increasingly unachievable annual targets with five-year emissions reduction plans, known as carbon budgets.
Those more flexible plans mirror the system used at UK level. Until they were scrapped, Scotland missed eight of its 12 annual targets and had to abandon its efforts to cut emissions by 75% by 2030.
Speaking as the CCC published its latest annual report on Scotland’s progress, Topping said: “I think we made a big step forward in terms of realistically achievable budgets last year, and now at least, for the first time, we’re in good shape.”
The committee estimates Scotland has realistic plans for 91% of the cuts it hopes to make by 2030 – a very high confidence figure, Topping said. “We’re really pleased with that one. And then it falls off a bit of a cliff. There’s some reasons for real concern about the second and third budget.”
For the second carbon budget up to 2035, the committee believes Scotland has credible plans for just 64% of the cuts needed, while for the third budget, up to 2040, that figure dropped to 58%. Those targets are subject to “significant risks or insufficient plans”.
The CCC said the areas of greatest concern included progress on decarbonising heating in buildings, particularly installing heat pumps, and the Scottish government’s very heavy reliance in future on carbon capture and storage and unproved technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere with machines.
Jamie Livingston, the head of Oxfam Scotland, said those findings showed that “Scotland’s approach is too reliant on science fiction and too silent on where the significant cash injection needed will come from – that’s a high-stakes climate gamble.”
The research foundation Nesta said it estimated Scotland would need to fit 110,000 heat pumps or other low carbon systems over the next four years to hit its 2030 carbon budget – triple the number suggested in the current government plan.
Topping said Scotland was making good progress with electric vehicles, installing a higher per capita number of EV chargers than the UK average, and had recently begun hitting its annual targets to restore degraded peatland, which is a significant emitter of carbon.
The CCC’s optimism over Scotland’s peatland strategy is not supported by other experts. NatureScot, the government nature conservation agency, has estimated it will cost at least £3bn to restore Scotland’s 1.3m hectares (3,212,370 acres) of degraded peatland and will miss its target to restore 250,000ha of that by 2030.
Gillian Martin, the Scottish net zero secretary, sidestepped all the CCC’s criticisms in her response to its report but said it would use the committee’s “feedback” to help produce the government’s final climate crisis action plan.
While Scotland contributes less than a tenth of the UK’s onshore climate emissions, under the Scottish National party its devolved government has championed climate policies, with the former first minister Nicola Sturgeon the first UK leader to declare a climate emergency.
Scotland has so far cut its emissions by 51.3% compared with 1990 levels, largely by closing its coal-fired power stations and building windfarms.
It is widely believed the UK Labour government’s multibillion net zero strategy will help cut those levels more quickly and deeply, but Topping warned that 58% of Scotland’s overall emissions were covered by Scottish government policies, not UK policy.
Lang Banks, director of WWF Scotland, said: “This report makes it crystal clear that much greater action is needed to cut carbon emissions from Scotland’s homes and land. The more we delay, the more we add to the climate crisis and the longer people have to wait for the benefits of lower energy bills, warmer homes, healthier air and nature recovery.”
