 I would like to begin by thanking the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for its stage 1 report. I am pleased that the committee supports the general principles of the bill and recognises that both maintain Scotland's place among those at the forefront of global ambition on climate change and makes target setting more transparent and accountable. Those are exactly the reasons why we brought this bill in the first place. I intend to summarise both the Scottish Government's view of the bill and set out our response to the lead committee's recommendations. I will focus on three main areas. Firstly, Scotland's headline target and the upcoming advice from the Committee on Climate Change. Secondly, the importance of transparency and rigor for the framework in which those targets are being set, and thirdly, the vital question of how the on-the-ground measures used to deliver on those targets should be agreed. The Scottish Government has been absolutely clear as to achieving its long-term goal of net zero emissions as soon as possible. Throughout the bill process, we have also been consistent in our intention to set a target date for this in-law as soon as it can be done credibly and responsibly. The bill includes the most ambitious statutory emissions reduction targets of any country in the world for 2020, 2030 and 2040. It will mean that Scotland is carbon neutral by 2050. Those targets follow the CCC's 2017 advice on the highest ambition Scottish response to the Paris agreement that remains within the limit of feasibility. The committee has acknowledged the world-leading nature of the bill targets in its stage 1 report, and so too have a number of leading international figures, including Laurent Fabius, architect of the Paris agreement, who has described the bill as a concrete application of the agreement. The bill clearly delivers on the Scottish Government's commitment to always strive for the most ambitious credible climate targets. However, I also recognise that the evidence continues to evolve at a rapid pace. In particular, the special report published by the IPCC last October represents a very significant step forward in the scientific evidence underpinning the Paris agreement. I am delighted that the IPCC lead authors are themselves in Edinburgh this week for a major scientific meeting as part of their preparations for their next assessment review. Responding quickly to the IPCC's report, the Scottish Government joined the Welsh and UK Governments in jointly commissioning further independent expert advice on targets from the CCC. That advice is scheduled to be published on 2 May. If the CCC that higher targets for Scotland are now credible, the Scottish Government will act quickly in line with that advice. For emphasis on this important point, if in its advice in May the committee advised that a date for net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases can now credibly be set, we will act to amend the bill to this effect at stage 2. The Scottish Government recognises the urgency of the call to action on climate change. The call has been set out through the science of the IPCC and is now being expressed very eloquently to us by our young people. I believe that there might be some of those young people watching the proceedings this afternoon. The devastating flooding that we are currently seeing in Malawi is also making painfully clear what is at stake for communities around the world. All too often it is those who have done the least to contribute to climate change who are hit hardest by it. In light of some confusion in the committee's stage 1 report around our approach to the ambition of near-term targets to reduce emissions, I would like to clarify once again that we have already asked the CCC to provide updated advice on the appropriate levels of all of Scotland's future targets, including those for 2020 and 2030. If the CCC advised that higher near-term targets are now credible, again the Scottish Government will act quickly to put those in the bill at stage 2. Whatever targets that are agreed by Parliament will then shape the update of the current climate change plan. I want the CCC's advice next month to inform Parliament's deliberations on the bill and I have noted the committee's intention to seek a timetable for the remaining stages that will allow it to take further evidence following the publication of the advice. It is my hope that the committee will be able to find a wide consensus around a set of targets in the bill that reflect the highest credible level of ambition. I would now like to return to the framework around the headline emissions reduction targets. The Parliament's 2009 act is already the toughest statutory framework on climate change in the world. Scotland remains the only country to have set statutory annual targets to reduce its emissions, ensuring annual scrutiny here in Parliament. We were the first to include a fair share of emissions from international aviation and shipping in our targets and I am really pleased that Wales has now joined us in doing so. Scotland's approach is working well. As members know, Scotland has reduced its emissions by almost half since the 1990 baseline and the last three annual emissions reduction targets have been met. As the committee has recognised in its stage 1 report, the bill makes a range of changes to further improve the transparency and accountability of the 2009 act target framework while maintaining its rigor. For example, the bill measures progress to targets based on actual emissions from Scotland and establishes a clear default position that no international carbon credits can be used to meet domestic targets. The committee has in its report proposed several further changes to the target framework. The Scottish Government accepts many of those and will explore updating the definition of Scotland's fair and safe emissions budget so that that is more directly linked to the Paris agreement, including in terms of the aim that it has set for global temperature. Neil Findlay I thank the minister for taking intervention. Just for clarity, can the minister confirm whether the Scottish Government is completely abandoned its plans to cut air passenger duty or eradicate it altogether? The minister said that it would be helpful if members today focused on areas that were actually within my portfolio. There are colleagues who will deal with very specific issues that will arise in respect of their own portfolios. Those changes combined with those already in the bill will ensure that Scotland continues to have the most rigorous, transparent and accountable framework of climate change legislation anywhere in the world. That, in turn, will ensure that the framework continues to fulfil its purpose of effectively driving on-the-ground action to reduce emissions. The Scottish Government recognises that highly ambitious climate change targets have to be matched by an equally ambitious package of delivery measures if they are to be credible and meaningful. The approach that was established by the Parliament's 2009 act is for ambitious evidence-based targets to be set in legislation and then for Governments to bring forward regular comprehensive climate change plans, setting out how those targets will be met with a key role for Parliament in scrutinising those plans. I have noted the view that is set out by the committee that it might have preferred to see specific delivery measures and targets included on the face of the present bill. While I understand the desire to be able to consider headline targets and delivery measures side by side, I also consider that what is most important is getting to the best possible package of delivery measures for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Government remains of the view that the current approach remains the best way to achieve that outcome. Setting out delivery measures through regular strategic plans allows them to be updated as circumstances and technologies evolve. The plan process means that a wide range of policies can be considered to find the most beneficial overall pathways. Putting a specific set of delivery measures directly into statute now would risk compromising the approach and leading to less effective overall planning, potentially even binding us to delivery mechanisms that prove to be ineffective or get overtaken. John Scott Cabinet Secretary, would you concede that the bill is strong in ambition, but rather weak and short and costed solutions and the financial memorandum is at best unclear in that regard? Is there anything that you can do to add further clarification? I think that the member who is a member of the committee has taken evidence from a number of people, including those who have indicated and flagged up in evidence that costing out long term for climate change is not a simple thing to do. The further out you go, the harder and more vague it becomes. The bill is about the target setting. The climate change plans will be where a lot of this detail will be discussed. I know that the member and some of his colleagues are very keen that that aspect of it will be part of the discussion that I expect, therefore it will be. In this context, I recognise that it is vital that the climate change plan process works as well as possible. I also recognise that there is scope for improvement in that process and welcome many of the constructive suggestions that are brought forward by the committee. The bill already includes the addition of new annual statutory reporting on a sector by sector basis for monitoring delivery of climate change plans. As requested by the committee, we will bring forward the timing of those reports from October to before summer recess. The Scottish Government has also committed to explore bringing forward a range of further amendments, for example specifying a structure of chapter headings for future plans. We have already committed to looking again at the content of the current plan as soon as the bill has been finalised. I have noted the committee's recommendation on the timing for this update and I will be considering this very carefully with my colleagues. We will provide a further response to Parliament once the CCC's advice on target levels is available but prior to the start of stage 2. The transition to a carbon neutral and then net zero emissions country will be transformational. The current climate change plan includes plans to phase out the need for new fossil fuel vehicles by 2032 and to effectively decarbonise all buildings by 2050. Although there will be immense co-benefits and opportunities, hard decisions will also be needed in many areas. As the IPCC made clear in its special report, everyone will have to act—governments, businesses, communities and individuals. The cabinet secretary said that if we are going to make that just transition that everyone talks about, we certainly need to do a lot better than we are currently doing in terms of getting employment in this country around renewables. I think that in general terms there would be broad agreement about the need to do that. I am going to come on if I have time to talk just a little about the just transition issue as well, because I think that it is central to a lot of what we are doing. Everyone calling for even higher target ambition must also, if those calls are to be credible, be prepared to now support practical on-the-ground measures to deliver the additional emissions reductions. A number of the policy levers needed to deliver the transformational changes to our carbon neutral Scotland remain reserved to Westminster. For example, decarbonisation of heat depends on UK Government decisions on the future of the gas network. The potential for industrial scale deployment of carbon capture usage and storage depends on decisions about conservation of critical infrastructure in the North Sea. Faster decarbonisation of transport in Scotland could be achieved by enabling Scotland's electricity network companies to make different investment decisions than in other parts of Great Britain. More broadly, an approach to UK taxation that is coherent with high ambition on climate change and inclusivity could enable a faster pace of decarbonisation that is fair for all. The UK Government is able to tax goods and services to reflect the environmental harm inherent in their production or consumption. Through broad business taxation powers such as corporate taxes and reliefs, it is able to influence investment decisions and the structure of the economy. That is why it is so important that the forthcoming CCC advice will consider UK as well as Scottish and Welsh targets. In conclusion, I would like to thank the lead committee once again for the constructive recommendations in their report. Climate change is a defining and far-reaching issue where cross-party consensus is of particular importance. The general principles of the bill of Scotland striving for the highest ambition credible targets and doing so within a transparent framework that provides strong roles for both independent expert advice and parliamentary scrutiny are areas in which I sincerely hope that we can all agree. I look forward to our debate today and I am proud to move the motion that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the climate change emissions reduction targets of Scotland. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. I now call on Julian Martin as the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. As convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I welcome the opportunity to highlight the committee's views on the climate change bill. Climate change is the biggest environmental societal challenge that we face. It represents the single greatest threat to our existence on this planet and is the most significant intergenerational justice issue of our time. Many of us here in the chamber have children, grandchildren, niece or nephew, and it is their world that we are fighting to save. They are telling us loud and clear that we need to do more. They are organising outside of this Parliament every week and demanding that we act. We must listen and ensure that we acknowledge the urgency and gravity of the task at hand. The climate change bill presents us with a timely opportunity to examine Scotland's current ambition and explore what we can all do to limit global warming and tackle climate change now. We all recognise the urgency of the situation. We need to increase and accelerate our action in the near term. We also need to recognise that the benefits and cost savings of early action far outweigh the cost of climate change itself. Increasing our climate change ambitions offers clear potential for innovation, jobs, the economy, the environment and for the wellbeing of the people of Scotland and beyond. We want to see Scotland at the forefront in exploring, developing and investing in those opportunities and in the technology that will help us to reach our emissions targets. The Scottish Government has stated that it is working towards a low-carbon economy, one that will help to deliver sustainable economic growth and create a greener, fairer and healthier Scotland. We believe that the bill represents a significant step in the right direction, strengthening Scotland's existing climate change legislation and setting Scotland on the path to achieving the ambitious targets set out in the Paris agreement. The bill sets a target of 90 per cent reduction in all the greenhouse gases by 2050 and allows for the target of 100 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the baseline, known as net zero, to be created at a future date. It also introduces more challenging interim targets, including a 66 per cent drop in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, with a 78 per cent decrease envisaged by 2040. We welcome the introduction of more challenging interim targets and note the cabinet secretary's points on accepting the UK Committee for Climate Change's revised advice. However, we recognise that this is a framework bill, our exploration of the issues that raises has taken us far beyond figures and percentages. We travelled across the country and found that communities eager to support Scotland's ambition as a global leader. We held outreach events in Glasgow, Elgin and Cercodi, as well as here in Parliament. At those events, we asked participants to set out the changes that they would personally be prepared to make in order to achieve more ambitious climate change targets. One of the more memorable visits was to Wallstone primary school in Brightons, where we met with the school's eco group, a group of young future leaders who were brimming with ideas on how we can move forward together. We also held several formal evidence sessions with stakeholders from across Scotland, as well as with experts tackling climate change issues in Sweden, in order to gain an international perspective. The evidence that we heard throughout our scrutiny of the Bill at Stage 1 only served to emphasise the scale of the challenge that we face, as well as the immediate need for action. In considering the Bill at Stage 1, we identified several significant issues that still need to be addressed and provisions that still require strengthening to ensure that Scotland fully contributes to meeting the challenge of limiting temperature rises. We are conscious that the Bill was drafted ahead of the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 Celsius. The committee supports the findings of this report and urges the Scottish Government to ensure that the stark evidence presented in it is taken into account at Stage 2. The targets in the Bill were also based on advice from the committee on climate change in 2017. As we have all said, updated advice from the committee on climate change and the targets that we should be seeking to achieve will be published in early May. I wonder if the convener could tell the chamber whether the committee was disappointed at the late response from the Government to the Stage 1 report. Obviously, on behalf of the committee, it is always good to have time to consider our Government's response, but we are also very aware of the fact that we were given considerable time at Stage 1, extra time to put our report together. We have to be mindful of the fact that we were given that extra many weeks time in earlier this year. Right. We have also recommended that the Bill should reflect the most ambitious targets set out in the forthcoming advice from the Committee on Climate Change and that the Government should provide an explanation if it acts contrary to any advice from the CCC moving forward. We identified several other areas that the committee needed to address as well. As the IPCC reports states, we have a crucial 12-year period, and if we do not get things in line, we will find it incredibly difficult to get back on track. With that start warning in mind, we need a sense of greater urgency to ensure that global temperatures do not rise to dangerous levels in the near term. Therefore, we ask that clarity is provided on the temperature limit that the Bill is seeking to contribute towards. We recommend that this should be 1.5 degrees and should reflect the most ambitious scenario of the forthcoming advice of the CCC. We also need a greater focus on transformational behaviour change at individual, institutional and systemic levels. Therefore, we ask that behaviour change is prioritised, promoted and incentivised by the Scottish Government. John Scott I thank the convener for taking the intervention. I note your comments on behalf of the committee about the 1.5 limiting the temperature rise to that level and are prepared in us to take advice from the climate change committee. However, I note that the cabinet secretary has said that the credible scenario would be happy to concede that that is a very valid point that the cabinet secretary makes in this regard. Julian Martin I will concede that, because I think that targets are all very well, but we need pathways in order to achieve them or else we will fail and we cannot afford to fail in reaching our ambition. We also note that climate justice requires further focus to ensure that everyone is supported in the transition to decarbonised economy and society. No one should be left behind. Therefore, we ask that the Scottish Government continue to place an emphasis on just transition and to consider all steps that are necessary to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected. We noted in our report that further consideration is needed in the possibility of establishing an independent just transition commission. That could include underpinning it by statute. In addition, I welcome the committee report on that. I note that the committee also says that further consideration should be given to certain sector-specific targets within the bill. On a just transition, we know that transport has performed fairly poorly and that agriculture has a long way to go. However, in those sectors, there is sometimes the view that they are not quite sure what is their meant to do and what support they should get. Is that something that the committee should be pushing further for to set sector targets so that we better understand what is going on in those sectors and what needs to go on? I take the member's view on that. We do not want to constrain ourselves because we do not know yet where the innovation is going to come. One of the other recommendations that we made is that business support networks and business support agencies let Scottish Enterprise prioritise low-carbon innovation and support in businesses such as that, because we do not know where that innovation is going to come. If we set strict targets sectorally, we might constrain development in one or the other. In addition, we believe that the Government needs to take a holistic approach towards climate change across all sectors and that further work is needed on target setting and identifying pathways for key sectors. Investment in and support for innovation, knowledge exchange, technology transfer and support to sectors such as agriculture and transport will be vital to meeting the targets. In our report, we have asked the Scottish Government to consider introducing a sector-specific target and provide further clarity in the targets that they have already set. We have also asked the Government to clarify the costs and opportunities that are associated with setting revised targets and to consider the limitations of the times model. In addition, we believe that further clarity and safeguards on the use of carbon credits is necessary. We also believe that there should be no fixed period for parliamentary scrutiny of climate change plans and that monitoring reports should be public in time for parliamentary committees to consider them within their budget scrutiny, and I thank the cabinet secretary for her response to that today. As a developed country, Scotland has a responsibility to lead action to ensure future generations inherit a world that is sustainable. At the heart of what the bill is trying to achieve is a secure and fair future for the planet and experts have advised that that will only come about via transformational change. We have all been inspired by the children and young people participating in the climate strikes across Scotland. We hosted 13 climate strikers in our committee this morning, and some of them are in the gallery this afternoon. However, in 12 years' time, they will no longer be children. Instead, they will be adults, dealing with the consequences of our actions now. We have a choice to make—do we help them now or do we hinder their future? We want to see greater urgency in action across all parts of the Government. The bill does represent a significant step in the right direction, and while I commend the general principles of climate change bill to the Scottish Parliament and recommend that it be agreed, as highlighted in the report, the committee has raised several significant issues that need to be addressed. Therefore, the committee invites the Scottish Government to address those issues at stage 2. Thank you very much, convener, and I call Maurice Golden to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The numbers sound small, a rise of 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. However, those seemingly small temperature rises would have profound effects on humanity. Tens of millions impacted by sea-level rises, hundreds of millions facing drought and billions exposed to extreme heat waves. The environment would see catastrophic changes to almost all coral reefs lost—a regular ice free Arctic—and scores of species impacted. Indeed, as the RSPB has highlighted, we have already seen wildlife affected right here in Scotland. The question, then, is what must be done to avoid this. As such, much of the debate around the bill has understandably been on which targets should be set for emissions reductions, especially on the potential for net zero. First, there needs to be clarity on how exactly the bill responds to the Paris agreement. I note that a clear report recommends that the bill explicitly references the temperature targets being aimed for, with a 1.5-degree increase being the suggestion. Moreover, that should also include a commitment to avoid an overshoot scenario. Both are sound proposals, and I am mindful of the consequences of an overshoot scenario having raised the issue with Professor Jim Skea from the IPCC last year. He was clear that those environmental consequences would be disastrous, not to mention the economic impact of then having to cope with higher adaption costs. It is not just a long term that we must be concerned with. The IPCC's report suggests that a sense of urgency raises the issue of looking at what actions we are taking in the near term, particularly with regard to interim targets. Both the UK and Scottish Governments have sensibly sought updated advice from the UK Committee on Climate Change on our long-term targets. I welcome the same approach for the 2030 target. Of course, we will hold the Scottish Government to account in line with the advice that it receives. It is important that we do that, because progress in reducing emissions will only be achieved if it is rooted in an evidence-based approach. This bill affords us an opportunity to embed at its fundamental level across all Government departments. I am pleased to see the clear committee take a similar view with regard to monitoring and reporting, echoing the case that I have consistently made for climate change thinking to be factored in to every portfolio. In practice, what is being suggested is that climate plan monitoring reports be made available in time to inform budget scrutiny and that ministers should report on the long-term impact of their spending decisions rather than just the immediate impact. The latter point lends extra strength to the idea that individual ministers should be held accountable for delivering specific sections of the climate plan. That accountability would produce a greater emphasis on actions that are achievable, and it is worth noting that the committee recommended that the bill include a definition of achievable. A measure that would help to give the public businesses stakeholder confidence that policy decisions were rooted in practicality. Mark Ruskell, I thank Mr Golden for giving way. He may have noticed the response from the Scottish Government to the climate bill report, which suggests that the Government does not intend to take further action, particularly on agriculture, beyond what it had already laid out in the 10th of January debate, which was to explicitly not consider climate change as part of farm support going forward. What is the Conservative view on that? Would you support farm support being dependent on action on climate change? First of all, I was disappointed in the tardiness of the response from the Scottish Government, which did not allow all of us as parliamentarians to fully digest the report. On the specific point around agriculture, I see farming and land managers in the agricultural sector as a whole as part of the solution to tackling climate change. It should very much be part of a payment system, an incentivised system, which works both for farmers but also for climate change. There are some fantastic techniques out there, such as no-till farming and ensuring that we can foster that sector but also make it accountable. It is something that the Scottish Government and future Scottish Governments should scrutinise. I also think that something that must be done is more closely monitoring when the CCC releases its updated advice on reaching net zero. The cabinet secretary has already confirmed that she will adopt any technically feasible pathway, and that will ultimately result in consideration of sectors beyond those that we have already seen significant emission reductions. For example, the 49 per cent overall emissions reductions that we have seen are largely fuelled by a 69 per cent emissions cut in the energy sector and a 73 per cent cut in the waste sector. Those are welcome achievements in resulting from a combination of public, private and third sector actions, as well as favourable policy landscapes from the UK and Scottish Governments. However, that success so far masks a lack of progress in other areas, such as the housing sector, where emissions are only down 21 per cent or transport, where they are down just 3 per cent. So, too, success must not breed complacency. The latest waste figures show that the recycling rate down, while both volume of waste and the amount of incineration is up. Clearly, there is need for further action, but action that is based on evidence, action that is informed by relevant voices and action that has, at its heart, the principle of just transition. Consider agriculture. The NFUS is broadly supportive of the current strategy and is willing to engage on further measures. For them, progress, as I have already highlighted, is more a question of resources and recognition of the nature of the sector rather than just stretching targets. That is why we are proposing direct capital funding and technical support that would enable farmers to produce better environmental and economic outcomes, as well as recognise that they are part of the solution. That same principle applies to other businesses. They must feel that they can contribute and they must have the confidence and changes that we ask them to make. In a recent WWF survey, they found that just one in six small businesses felt that they had the right direction from the Scottish Government about their role in climate change. That should be a wake-up call to make better business cases for actions on climate breakdown. When businesses are invested in the process, the results can be extremely impressive. For example, the Scottish Leather Group in Renfrewshire has developed a world-leading low-carbon leather production technology that reduces the carbon footprint from 10 kilograms of carbon per metre squared to less than one. I also mentioned previously the housing and transport sectors. In the former, we have already seen Parliament indicate that they wanted action taken when we led cross-party efforts last year to bring forward energy efficiency and heat waste reduction targets by a decade. In transport, targets have been set to phase out petrol and diesel cars and reduce sectoral emissions by 37 per cent, both by 2032. That ambition is laudable, but with just 1 per cent of Scotland's 2.9 million cars currently being electric, there is a question over the level of detail and the feasibility of that. Perhaps a way to kick-start that progress would be, as the Scottish Conservatives have highlighted, to see that public procurement of all electric vehicles were possible by 2027. In sector after sector, Presiding Officer, there is a need to go further. I understand calls to commit a maximum reductions as quickly as possible. That is why I welcome the opportunity to explore those issues in as much detail as possible as the bill progresses through Parliament. I am proud today to open for Scottish Labour at stage 1 of the climate change bill, the first parliamentary debate of a bill that holds monumental significance for the future of our country, our global standing in the world and the joint battle against manmade climate change. I am also pleased to support the Eclair Committee recommendations at stage 1 in our report. Of course, that is stage 1 of the bill in name, but I must recognise the tireless work that has already been undertaken to get us to this point. I want to thank the clerks and all stakeholders for their briefings and support, and indeed to those who were out at the demonstration today to focus our minds and those who gave compelling evidence to the committee and the school students, some of whom are in the gallery today, who have made sure that this Parliament really sits up and listens. It was fantastic to meet young climate activists this morning at the committee. Young climate activists are clear that they did not create the climate emergency, yet it is they who would experience the drastic effects of adult slow action or inaction across the globe and here in Scotland. Those young people, led by the brave Greta Thunberg, are an inspiration, sending messages of urgency and equity that cannot be ignored. It is very welcome that the Eclair Committee has produced a pretty strong and consensual statement of action on climate change. We can proudly say that, despite some differences of pace along party lines in various ways beyond the committee, there is cross-party agreement for our unanimous stage 1 report. To make explicit reference to the temperature that targets are seeking to achieve, the committee recommends that this should be 1.5 degrees Celsius. The committee accepts that net zero target is a clearer message to understand than 90 degrees. The committee has asked that we reflect on the possibility of establishing a just transition commission with statutory underpinning and to place priority on intergenerational justice and to work on how Scotland should account for its fair share globally. Scottish Labour welcomes the committee report and considered the Scottish Government's report with interest, frankly, as best we could, in only 24 hours. I think that that point has been made by some other committee members. We welcome the committee and government agreement in striving for greater transparency, improvements to the time's model output and a more comprehensive link between the international Paris agreements and national targets with, I quote, from the Scottish Government's fair and safe emissions budget. One of the most important recommendations is the committee's statement that a net zero emissions target, I quote, would send a strong signal emphasising the need for significant change. That is absolutely correct. While it is disappointing that the Scottish Government still does not consider itself able to make that commitment without the approval of the UK CCC, I look forward to the advice and the Scottish Government's response. Scottish Labour strongly refutes the Government's assertion to our recommendation 272 that Scotland's relatively smaller size is relevant to its climate ambition. We may be small, but our capacity for innovation knows no bounds and our historic industrial emissions must be accounted for and responsibility taken. We must be inspirational climate change action leaders. The Scottish Government's openness to a statutory just transition commission is also welcome following on from their support for my amendment calling for further consideration of this. While we are in the process of transitioning to a net zero economy and society, we will need proper guidance and advice from industry experts, environment experts and trade unions to a fair and rapid way forward. We must be rigorous about testing for injustice when delivering those targets. The Scottish Government is clearly still unshifting in its intention for the scope of the bill and insists that this must remain narrow. I am not convinced that this is the best approach. However, it is very positive to have the Scottish Government commitment to look again at the current climate change plan set up until 2032 once the bill has been finalised. Updating policy intentions in line with stricter targets will be vital to ensure that there is no delay in action. Additionally, considering the delivery of those targets, it is promising that the Scottish Government will explore commissioning further work in assessing the current low-carbon investment landscape, particularly in relation to the Scottish National Investment Bank. The debate around how best to tackle each sector is interesting, and I urge the Scottish Government to commit to requiring all shadow cabinet secretaries and ministers to account for their portfolio, embedding climate change into everyone's work. Sectors such as agriculture and transport, as we have heard already, need to speed up the rate at which their emissions are falling. That will take support, direction from government and robust policies. The bill could be the place for a firmer requirement on the Scottish Government to set out its decisions on contributing to meeting targets. There is much to be proud of in the report and the response from the cabinet secretary, but there is still much further to go. We are following in the footsteps set out in the 2009 act of collaboration and agreement, but are driving ambition to set targets that will make real differences to the lives of affected workers and communities here in Scotland, those in the global south who will be hit the hardest and to the lives of the young people of today and tomorrow. We are indeed facing a national environment and climate emergency, and that is a declaration that Scottish Labour and UK Labour can both make. Scottish Labour supports the Eclare Committee's stage 1 report, which is a strong ground to move forward from, and I welcome the report and the debate today. I welcome the stage 1 debate and the opportunity to step up our climate laws to the monumental challenge of keeping the world below 1.5 degrees of global warming. At times, it was not an easy report to find consensus on, and some of the harder questions have been pushed to the climate change committee to answer. However, it now allows us to move on to stage 2, where there will be clear choices to strengthen the legislation. The 2009 climate act may be world-leading in its annual targets, but it lacks a world-leading net zero target and a far-reaching 2030 goal to secure the future. We need the climate bill to deliver the changes that are necessary. Those changes mean looking unpleasant truths in the eye and turning them into opportunities. It is about Governments setting out clear goals for transition with time to plan and bringing the jobs of the future into reality today. It means acting as New Zealand has done to plan ahead to the next generation beyond oil and gas and for a net zero farming sector. If we cannot make decisions today for future decades, we are simply condemning communities to abrupt and inevitable economic shocks in the future. To avoid that, a just transition commission needs to be underpinned in this bill, with a remit to speak truth to power and guide us through the complex challenges and the opportunities ahead. The business of transition needs more than just a chapter in the climate change plan. It must be central to the purpose of government, where innovation and productivity should only grow in a low-carbon way from now on. It is not good enough to point to examples of where enterprise agencies are steering low-carbon work. This mission needs to run right through the core of all government business, with no policy contradictions or effort in the same direction. The same must also go for Government spending decisions, and I welcome that the Government wishes to discuss further how the budget process could be strengthened through this bill, building on the commitments that were secured through last year's budget deal with the Greens. One of the few clear positives that I took from last week's debate on climate change was that there is a consensus in this chamber that we must keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees. That is the only credible response, and this needs to now be reflected in this bill at stage 2. We are simply either on the right side of history here or we are not. Going over 1.5 degrees will mean death for millions, droughts, floods and heat waves leading to mass climate migration, development in the global south going into reverse, collapsing economies, war over resources that we take for granted such as water. We have to give people in the south room to breathe on this tiny planet. After centuries of colonialism and industrialisation, how can we deny people their birthright, their future, because of the fear of industry lobbyists standing in the way of change at home? 1.5 degrees must be reflected as the goal in this bill, but I am disappointed with the Government's response to the report that was issued just yesterday, which seems to weaken the much stronger position that it took on 1.5 degrees in the debate just last week. While there is an acknowledgement that a mission budget needs to be linked in the bill to the Paris goal of well below 2 degrees, in the very next point, the Government backtracks starts explaining that Scotland makes a very small contribution globally and doesn't feel confident that a 1.5 goal will be met. So much for well-leading ambition. Maybe the person who wrote that needs to talk to the person who wrote last week's Government amendment to the debate. If the UK Climate Change Committee was not asked about how to avoid the overshoot scenario, where the planet heats beyond 1.5 degrees kills millions of people, then the Cabinet Secretary should avoid any further confusion and make sure that she has that advice too. It is clear that an acceleration of action is desperately needed in the next decade, rather than the current trajectory that will cost lives. Take land use. The committee has a strong consensus on the need for better management of land to be driving action on climate change, for farming to be the solution rather than the problem. However, the Government response just points to low-key voluntary programmes. It even highlights its position during the debate on agriculture on 10 January, a debate where the Government rejected setting climate change as an explicit objective for future farm support. We have strong cross-party agreement in committee that measuring what the farming sector does from carbon sequestration to productivity improvements must be understood, incentivised and counted. It is not good enough for the Government to say that the stuff is hard to do on a farm level. It must be integral to individual farm support payments going forward. We heard again in committee this morning directly from the IPCC scientists themselves that New Zealand and Ireland are ahead of the game in terms of farm inventory accounting. It is time that we caught up with running out of time. After last week's debate on climate change, I really started to question whether this Parliament is currently fit for dealing with the biggest existential crisis facing humanity. Clearly, there are a growing number of people, especially young people outside of this Parliament, who are making up their minds on that question right now. However, this is our opportunity here to restore faith, to show that politicians can reject short-termism, that we can look to a future beyond our own political careers, to do the right and the necessary thing, to correct the errors of what has come before us, so that we can give the gift of the future to all those who will come after us. It is customary to start by thanking the committee for its work on the stage 1 report, but, given the magnitude of the issue and the complexity of the bill, thanks seems somewhat inadequate. Nevertheless, I congratulate Gillian Martin and her colleagues, not least in reaching unanimity, while acknowledging the contribution from all those who gave evidence to the committee and provide helpful briefing for today's proceedings. After last week's dummy run, this afternoon has given Parliament an opportunity to flesh out where we should be setting our sights, matching the gravity and urgency of the challenge with the ambition necessary to avert the catastrophic consequences of climate change. Whatever our disagreements over the detail, and there will be some, I hope and believe that we are more likely to be successful in this if Parliament ultimately comes to a united and unifying view by the end of stage 3. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are proud of the part that we have played to date in framing ambitious legislation and policy, and we remain committed to doing so again with respect to the bill and related strategies. However, we should not be under any illusions. The easy wins and the low-hanging fruit have largely been grabbed. What comes next will require greater effort, more difficult choices and increased resources. Unfortunately, at this point, the Government's climate change bill falls short of meeting that challenge, as Skiath and others have pointed out. Despite what the cabinet secretary said, it fails to enshrine the Paris agreement. Explicitly aligning the bill with the 1.5-degree global temperature goal would be one way of moving us in the right direction. I echo the sentiments of the Ecclare Committee in that regard. Of course, Paris also enshrines the principle of equity. Again, I think that the Ecclare Committee is right to acknowledge that Scotland, as a developed nation, has a larger responsibility for global warming and therefore should be reflecting that in the targets that we set in this bill. As the chair of the UK Committee on Climate Change Lords, Damon Fairlie observed, when you look at the capacity of some countries to meet the targets that they are prepared to sign up to, it is clear that we in the richer countries have more to do. That is what equity means in practice, that is what we need to achieve through this bill and that is what those in the global south who have contributed least to the creation of climate change but are already enduring the worst impacts have a right to expect. It is also where the targets we set need to be as ambitious as possible. I still believe that net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is stretching but feasible. Should we be going faster? Absolutely. If that is underpinned by the evidence and independent expert advice, I note that WWF link stops climate chaos and others advocate bringing net zero targets forward to 2045. They are absolutely right to keep our feet to the fire but I am conscious again of Lord Damon's response to the clear committee on target setting where he cautioned that, quote, it is not sensible to espouse a target without being clear about what it really means. You can have any old target but it will not work if you cannot come down to the terms but how you will get there. Yes, we need to be ambitious, challenging. Thank you for giving way on that point. When this Parliament set the target for renewable energy, will we clear how we are going to achieve it? We should absolutely be setting stretching and ambitious targets but when we pick and choose the points at which we accept the advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change, we move into difficult territory. Yes, it is right that we sought revised advice from them but, nevertheless, distancing ourselves from that advice leaves us in a position where substantiating and justifying the approach that we are taking becomes more problematic. Of course, the public also expects us to face up to the urgency of the threat posed by climate change and not simply to postpone the hard decisions and that is why I have considerable sympathy with calls for an emissions reduction target of 80 per cent by 2030. Again, this needs to be aligned with the advice of the UKCCC but the view of the IPCC that rapid far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society will be needed over the next 12 years cannot be ignored. This is also the clear message from young people. Last week, I too highlighted the local dimension to the climate strike campaign but let me quote Jesse Dodman from Papua Westry who is a pupil at Westry Community School who wrote to me saying, the Scottish Government's climate change bill offers a good first step but needs to be delivered more quickly and effectively before the predicted deadlines for irreversible change in 2030. Jesse goes on to add, Scotland and the UK are investing millions in roads, bridges and ferries but not nearly enough in making sure that all transport is carbon neutral. As well as offering me a chance to reiterate my calls for the Government to help with the replacement of the internal ferry fleet in order to one that is more fuel efficient, Jesse's comments underscore one of the areas of transport where urgent action is desperately needed, heat and agriculture being perhaps the other two obvious ones. In identifying how we achieve the emissions reductions that we need to see, it is worth bearing in mind that while advances in technology will undoubtedly help, we cannot innovate our way out of the problem of behavioural changes that will be necessary. On the question of whether or not we should be looking to set sectoral targets, again I find myself in agreement with the Eclare committee. Stage 1 reports suggest that sectors need to be a clear understanding of what they are expected to deliver, adding sectoral disaggregation of targets is required and as our understanding of what is necessary in each sector develops, a move to sector specific targets may be appropriate. That is just one of the roles for the Just Transition Commission and again another reason for putting it on a statutory footing. Before concluding, let me touch briefly on agriculture. Yes, this is a sector that needs to do more and there is an appetite to do so, but it is best achieved collaboratively using carrots as well as sticks rather than a more confrontational approach unfortunately adopted by some. As NFUS say, emissions are an inevitable consequence of food production, those can and should be reduced, though there is an argument for looking at how the positives from agriculture are more fairly balanced alongside the negatives. Ultimately however, farmers and crofters must be seen as part of the solution. The clear and present threat posed by climate change here and internationally has been exposed by the latest IPCC report. It demands a more urgent and ambitious response from the Government and from this Parliament and I am determined to continue working with colleagues across the chamber to ensure that, collectively, as we have done in the past, we meet that challenge. Thank you very much. Before I move into the open debate, I have a little time in hand for interventions for members who can take their other time made up. Speeches are six minutes. Stuart Stevenson followed by John Scott. Mr Stevenson, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. With a passage of the 2009 Climate Change Act, we showed leadership in tackling the scourge of climate change. We can and will do so with our new bill. I deliberately say our bill rather than the Government's bill, but in a Parliament of minorities, the Government is merely the midwife. We must be all of its parents. In 2009, the Parliament united to support our bill, and, as we consider whether to support the general principles of the new bill, our committee has shown the way by unanimously agreeing our report. That does not mean that any of us have resiled from some of the detailed differences that we will explore as the bill goes forward, but we have to put some of our differences on hold to a green net step, and that will continue to be true throughout the bill. For my part, I have already written to stage 2 amendments. I saw a cabinet century flinch there. One of which is to put zero carbon target, which is implicit in the bill, on the face of the bill, and the other of which is to add to the long title a reference to the world's need to restrict global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. I cannot see any way that we can legally make it enforceable in those terms, but others may do. It is vital, of course, that we continue to challenge each other and ourselves on every proposal, including the ones that I have just described. At the end, we must return to an agreement if we succeed in moving our fellow citizens with us to protect our planet and all life that depends on it. That means being prepared for compromise, but it does not require us to advertise what compromises we might contemplate before we actually make them. In essence, what we are doing is writing a corporate plan for our country's future, model process, actions and method for other countries to follow. We are but a small speck on the globe's surface, but that small speck can be the ffocrum over which we leverage the actions for others. A corporate plan is mere hot air, if it is just a written piece of paper. It has to lead to individual change. I want to talk about some of the things that those of us who are here in the Parliament can do—practical things on the ground reductions that we can contribute to. Let me illustrate that. My first full year in Parliament, I claimed for 19,391 miles in a car a rate of £49.3 per mile, and I claimed £49.3 per mile. Did I say something different? Presiding Officer, aren't you so glad that everyone is listening to my every word? I claimed what would have been £369.67 had I then been using my senior rail card as I now do. Therefore, 96 per cent of my travel costs were for car miles. In the year that just ended, I have claimed for 6,387 miles at £45 per mile and £2,707 per public transport. 51.5 per cent of my costs are now for car mile costs, and my mileage is now under a third of what it was in the year 2002-2003. Finlay Carson I wonder what cost you put on democracy and the lack of reputation that those who represent very rural constituencies without the luxury of a train station might have when their members weren't able to visit them, and they had to use the car to represent them properly in Parliament. Stuart Stevenson Well, let me just say that my personal activity rate, measured by the number of surgeries and the number of entries in my diaries, is broadly the same in the current year that just ended, as it was in 2003. I can do it so others can, but of course we have modern technology. Why don't we do online video surgeries with our constituents so that they can engage with us without leaving the home? That is just made up in the spur of the moment. I am talking about what we can do to set an example, but I am not saying that others can all do it. Do you think that I will make a little bit more progress on cars, if I may? The marginal cost of a car mile is falling steeply as hybrid propulsion is more pervasive, and when we are all electric, the fuel is now down to three pence per mile. I am going to write to the Presiding Officer at the end of this debate to suggest that we reduce our expenses per mile, initially from 45 pence per mile to 30 pence per mile, and commit to tapering it to zero by 2032, because that coincides with our going electric, because the marginal cost of driving becomes almost zero. We should also keep our cars longer. I plan to do 10 years. I have a paperless office here in the Parliament. That saves money. Other people can do it as well. Now, a paperless office is 99.5 per cent. I will regret this, but I will. In relation to electronic vehicles, I have tried to find out from the Government how many people who access the grant for electronic vehicles are from the lowest socioeconomic groups. I cannot find that out. I wonder whether the member would care to hazard a guess. The member would not hazard a guess, but I know that there are a lot of electric vehicles out there, because there are 6,500 charging points in Scotland. There will be more vehicles available at cheaper prices as time goes on. Let's hope that that happens sooner or later. We are encouraging active travel for our citizens as well. I propose that we stop allowing MSPs to claim for short taxi journeys initially under a mile, one and a half miles by 2021 and two miles by 2026. I am going to write the appeal about that. I walked 83.1 miles in March. It is not very much. It is only 2.6 miles a day. How much did everyone else here walk, Presiding Officer? We have a credibility and we can have a dialogue with the citizens of Scotland if we, as individuals, do some of the quite simple things that we can be doing. Those are only a couple of examples. If I had another hour to speak, I could give you another hundred of them. You do not have it. I call John Scott. We follow about Angus MacDonald, Mr Scott. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, landowner and food producer? I will not be doing any virtue signalling in my speech. May I also welcome the opportunity to speak in the stage 1 debate and thank to all those who have given evidence in whatever form to the committee and to thank our clerks as well and thank the wider public and our young people for their active engagement in this process. Presiding Officer, while we all share the ambitions to reduce the speed of climate change and the ambition to reduce the rate of temperature rises, we need to find a practical way of achieving this. Scottish Conservatives want our nation to be one of the lead nations worldwide in getting as quickly as possible to net zero and while we are concerned about the difficulties and cost of pioneering and delivering on the ambition, we are also excited by the opportunities that such ambitions may offer to our scientific and business development communities. It is a long-held business mantra that the prize goes to those who can turn a challenge into an opportunity and Scotland as a whole will need to buy into this concept. As I said in last week's debate, it may be our young people who help to drive this forward more quickly, influencing their parents and we welcome them today to the gallery. Ambition is not lacking, but easily reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping temperature change to 1.5 degrees will be much harder. We are in a sort of limbo land as we debate the principles of this bill while awaiting further advice from the climate change committee on 2 May. However, consideration of various fundamentals of the bill are not dependent on the climate change committee advice or pathways being demonstrated. The most obvious one is the cost of pursuing targets. Parliament and the people of Scotland need a better understanding of what is going to be expected of them and the cost to them as the financial memorandum for this bill is best unclear on that. A figure of £13 billion appears to have been almost plucked out of thin air with times modelling not accurately applying to the two sectors, most perceived as needing to do better, namely transport and agriculture, which of itself calls into question the reliability of the whole times modelling process. Does the member, like I regret the fact that there is not a cost of the cost of doing nothing, which I think is generally accepted, will far exceed the cost of doing something? John Scott Mr Stevenson, I accept what you say. The accounting methods and the models used to arrive at this figure and other figures as high as £55 billion were not clearly explained to the committee and left us all at best confused. If the Government cannot easily explain the likely cost burdens to committee members willing and endeavouring to understand, how will it get this message over to the taxpayers and the business people who are going to have to fund these costs? Although the Government's response of yesterday acknowledges those concerns, it does little to address them, noting as it does that the bill is about raising ambitions, but not about delivering costed solutions. Another cost that will not change no matter what the climate change committee says is the physical and mental health cost of expected and required behavioural change. The lifestyle changes that the Scottish Government and we as a Parliament are apparently expecting the people of Scotland to undertake will leave many individuals and businesses feeling threatened and financially pressured, and the Scottish Government will have to be very careful about how it is perceived as it presses for modal shift. That is to say moving people out of their cars into electric vehicles, onto trams, into buses, onto bicycles or just onto pavements as more of us are expected to walk to work. Turning now to the agricultural sector, lifestyle and business model changes will undoubtedly require for the increasing delivery of public goods that this bill and environmental NGOs are demanding. A welcome start to this progress would be a more realistic appreciation, understanding and measurement of the contribution that land managers and farmers already make to climate change reduction if measured in a more holistic way, and Mark Ruskell has already alluded to that. Not everyone will know or think reasonable that a farmer planting trees on his land or are allowing renewable energy projects such as wind farms or hydroelectric schemes on to his land or peatland restoration schemes that that farmer receives no credit in terms of carbon reduction for doing so, or indeed and more importantly in this context that the agriculture sector receives no credit for this type of land use on agricultural land. So, while measurement of these climate change reducing industries are driven by IPC standards, a parallel and more realistic way of measuring the benefits of different types of whole farm land use, particularly here in Scotland, is required. So I welcome the Government's acknowledgement of this in their response and their offer to work further with the committee on this, and I suggest the Scottish Government look to New Zealand and Ireland for good examples of how this should be done. Turning very briefly to housing, I support Maurice Golden's view that we need EPCC rating by 2030 and earnestly encourage the Scottish Government to work harder to deliver this, and their report again suggests that ambition is only for others in this regard, but not for the Scottish Government about improving housing. We await the further evidence of the climate change committee on 2 May and hope that, if they expect still greater effort from the people of Scotland to reduce the threat from climate change, they will also explain and demonstrate the credible pathways to doing so and the likely costs involved. Presiding Officer, I do not think that it is overdramatic to say that the possibility of a climate catastrophe is the biggest global issue of our time, and we should never tired of saying it until it is well and truly planted in the minds of every citizen in this country and beyond. Six months ago, we all got a wake-up call when the IPCC warned the world that rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes were needed if the climate crisis was to be tackled effectively. So I am pleased to see the Scottish Government hosting nearly 200 climate scientists meeting at the John McIntyre conference centre in Edinburgh this week at the third working group of the IPCC, looking at ways to equip Governments with the information that they need to act now, keeping in mind the goals of the Paris agreement and national ambitions to achieve net zero emissions. Their final report, which is due for publication in 2021, will provide Governments with scientific information to underpin responses to climate change in the context of sustainable development. Of course, this is all happening on the same week that we have this stage 1 debate. Also, on the week that stopped climate chaos, Scotland released some interesting stats from their YouGov poll that shows that 78 per cent of respondents are either more concerned about climate change or are as concerned as they were 12 months ago. One in three are more concerned about climate change now than they were one year ago. 70 per cent of respondents support Scotland taking greater action in transport, food and homes to tackle climate change. It is encouraging to see the new polling highlighting that people in Scotland are getting the message and recognising the seriousness of the situation and wanting more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, as the convener has mentioned, we had the benefit this morning of meeting with young climate change protesters at an informal meeting of our eclair committee. It is fair to say that they did not hold back in letting us know all that we need to do and that we need to do more. There is no doubt in my mind that the recent climate strikes have acted as a catalyst to show that there is not only justification but also an appetite for urgent and more ambitious action from Governments across the world, not just here in northern Europe. Turning to the stage 1 report, I add my thanks to the clerks for the work that they have done. The committee recognised that the Scottish Government selected the more ambitious of the two options proposed by the CCC, which highlights that what will be required from Governments around the world to keep temperatures rises closer to 1.5°C than 2. However, we also noted that the Scottish Government is awaiting further advice in light of the 2018 IPCC report from the CCC, as do we all. It is welcome to see in the Scottish Government's response to the committee report that it reiterates that it has been clear that if the CCC advises on 2 May that higher target ambition is not credible, then we or they will act on that advice. I was pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary confirmed that in our opening speech this afternoon. Our report states that a 90 per cent target is stretching and challenging, and a net zero target will present further challenges, but there are also great opportunities. The benefits and cost savings of early action far outweigh the costs of climate change. However, we have to bear in mind that setting targets that are too high too soon could have a detrimental impact on the economic growth of Scotland. Striving for the most ambitious targets possible, based on the best available advice, is admirable, but it must not compromise the wellbeing of the people of Scotland, which brings me to farming. I am grateful to the NFUS for the briefing in advance of the debate, which recognises that climate change is a critically important issue for Scottish farming. The WWF briefing, which highlights its report with Vivid Economics, provides a pathway for agriculture to reduce emissions by around 35 per cent, while maintaining current production levels. There is no doubt that farmers and crofters will have an important role to play in helping to tackle the climate change challenge, and it is important that agriculture is seen as being part of the solution, not part of the problem, as some other members have already stated this afternoon. It has to be noted that reducing emissions from farming beyond those that can be achieved through efficiency and technology would mean reducing the amount of food produced in Scotland and importing from abroad, which might result in a reduction in emissions in Scotland, but it would result in increased emissions elsewhere. Several witnesses, when giving evidence to our committee, spoke of the potential disproportionate impact that a badly managed transition could have in rural areas and on those working in the agricultural industry. I am sure that none of us in this chamber want to see land abandonment in the lowlands or the highlands and islands, which could be an outcome if we are not careful. I would like to quickly touch on CCUS, as I am keen to see the CCS plant proposed for Grangemouth in my constituency progress. Clearly, our committee welcomes the recent shift in the UK Government's position on CCS, and it is recommended that the Scottish Government continues to work with its UK and international counterparts on the development of CCS technology. We call on both Governments to utilise all leavers at their disposal domestically to evaluate the merits of CCS and to consider the merits of early development and implementation of the technology. It is encouraging to see the Scottish Government's response detailing the establishment of the CCUS leadership group, support for the ACORN CCS project, and funding to a collaboration of Scottish universities working on CCUS. It is fair to say that that is progress indeed, Presiding Officer. I thank the committee for its work and note that the committee did have extra time to look at the issue, as the convener mentioned, when it intervened. However, other members did have little time to consider the Government's response, so I have to express disappointment in that. Although I am not a committee member, I welcome the opportunity to speak on what is a vitally important subject that should concern all of us, and I think that it increasingly is. As we know and we have heard previously in the debate, school pupils around the world have been on strike to raise awareness of climate change, and they want to ensure that future generations are not denied the right to a healthy planet. As the committee report notes, the issue of climate change raises particular challenges in relation to intergenerational justice, and we have a duty to protect the environment and natural resources for future generations. The role of young friends of the air Scotland warned that the Government risks passing on the burden for radical transformative action to young people. In an open letter about the effects of climate change, young activists say in a quote, that people did die, are dying and will die because of it, but we can and will stop this madness. The Young People's movement, as Claudia Beamish mentioned, was launched by a young woman, Greta Thunberg, who first missed school in Sweden in 2018, to protest, and I understand that she has recently been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that it is aposite that it was a young woman since women and girls suffered disproportionately from the effects of climate change. Producing and gathering food, collecting water, finding fuel for heating and cooking is often the responsibility of women, and climate change is making those life-supporting tasks much more difficult. The committee report cites the Paris agreement, which names important rights, such as gender equality and empowerment of women as being fundamental to achieving climate justice. The committee recommends that climate justice requires further focus to ensure that Scotland has the necessary structures in place to engage and support the most vulnerable through the period of transition, as well as a responsibility to developing nations. Many organisations have been campaigning on this for some time, and of course we saw a large campaign outside today, which many members took the opportunity to go out and join with, and are in many also in the gallery just now. Those include the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, or SCIAF, and they know from their consistent work in developing countries that those who are already living in extreme poverty are suffering the most severely from climate change. The most recent cyclone, which struck Mozambique, Malawi and Simbabwe, affected more than 2 million people, and it caused indescribable devastation. Previously, when visiting Malawi, I saw personally the aftermath of that, in terms of people losing shelter and not having access to food because of flooding. Jessica Swart, a care spokesperson, commented that following a natural disaster like a cyclone, women and girls are particularly vulnerable, and climate scientists have confirmed that disasters like that will only become more severe due to climate change. Those are the real lives that are being affected and underpinned what we are trying to do. In response to the IPCC report, the committee recommended that the Government seek further guidance on whether the 2030 target is still appropriate. We have heard today that they intend to wait until 2 May to consider that. The committee report shows that half a degree of difference would result in several hundred million fewer people exposed to climate-related poverty. As we know, 70 per cent of the world's poorest are women, and we also know that 80 per cent of people displaced by climate change are women. The UN2 has highlighted the need for gender-sensitive responses to the impacts of climate change, yet the average representation of women in national and global climate-negotiating bodies is below 30 per cent. That is just not good enough. The women's environmental network specifically makes the point that, until social inequality is addressed, climate change will only get worse. If I might turn briefly to another issue, the stage 1 report heard evidence of the importance of monitoring other handful emissions such as methane and acknowledged the potential for targets to positively impact on air quality. I believe that fracking would challenge those ambitions, and it is of major concern in my community. As MSPs, we have a responsibility to protect our communities from harm, and fracking has proven deeply unpopular in every community in the UK where it has been trialled. Pollution, noise and danger are tampering with the very ground on which we have built homes and justified concerns. I believe that a practice band in Germany and France is not safe here in Scotland. Indeed, Ida Nill-QC recently confirmed that we have the power to ban fracking. Since fracking, we have put the ambitions of targets at risk. I think that it is time that the Government used the power. Siaff noted in its submission to the committee that the 2020 and 2030 targets proposed in the bill essentially maintain current levels of ambition and are therefore inadequate. A 90 per cent target by 2050 would represent a huge missed opportunity to lead the world in climate change legislation. It went on to say that we must see the bill for what it is—an opportunity for this Parliament to make a bold and world-leading commitment to save the poorest and all of us from this impending disaster at a time when concern over climate change is at an all-time high. The bill is an opportunity for this Parliament to do something truly remarkable in the name of the poorest who are already suffering the effects of climate change and for the sake of the next generation whose future is in our hands. That is why we need the Government and this Parliament to tackle climate change with urgency and not push it on to the shoulders of today's young people. I look forward to seeing amendments to the bill at stage 2, including a statutory just transition commission. Climate change is one of the defining challenges of our age. Scotland's international leadership means that our plans must be ambitious, credible and affordable, which is exactly what I believe the new climate change bill delivers. The bill is set against the backdrop of Scotland being a world leader in tackling climate change in the circular economy. Cos Scotland's low-carbon transition is well under way. Our emissions have almost halved since 1990. We continue to outperform the UK in delivering reductions. We have a target to generate the equivalent of 100 per cent of gross annual electricity consumption and 11 per cent of heat consumption from renewable energy by 2020. In the UK context, Scotland continues to lead in renewable energy, with 75 per cent of Scotland's gross electricity consumption from renewable sources and an increase of 70 per cent achieved in 2017. Importantly, Scotland's renewable energy electricity currently makes up 24 per cent of UK renewable output. Of course, our ambitions extend beyond that as we set forth for Scotland to create a circular economy. We are the first country in the United Kingdom to commit to introducing a deposit return scheme for drinks containers to improve the rate and quality of recycling. This is a scheme that I have already seen operate first-hand at a local NISA store owned by Mr Abdul Majeed. Mr Majeed piloted the scheme, and the generous people of Belsil asked that their returns be donated to St Andrew's Hospice, who do amazing work caring for those who require pallet of care. Not only is this helping and recycling, it is also a positive impact in the community, thanks to the generosity that was shown. This is one of the elements that the SNP Scottish Government is introducing to tackle our throwaway culture, including the establishment of an expert panel on charges and other measures to tackle the issue. In 2017, across Scotland for the first time, we recycled more than we sent to landfill. Since 2007, Scotland's household recycling rate has improved 13 per cent from 32.2 per cent to 45.6 per cent. Let's all hope that that trend continues to rise. The Scottish Government's approach makes sure that we not only continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions but ensure that we are resilient to climate change impacts. This week, the Scottish Government will meet its programme for government 2018 commitment to welcome 220 of the world's top climate scientists as the Scottish Government hosts a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change discussion on the sixth assessment report. Once again, reiterating this Government's unwaithing commitment to international leadership on this issue. However, we can always go further, and with this bill we are. The climate change bill sets out the Scottish Government's commitment to reduce emissions by 100 per cent with ambitious interim targets that strengthen Scotland's world-leading position on climate change. The 90 per cent target will be tougher, even than the 100 per cent goal set by the handful of other countries, because our legislation will set more demanding, legally binding annual targets covered every sector of our economy. By 2030—no, I don't have time—Scotland will cut emissions by two thirds, and unlike other nations, we will not use carbon offsetting, where other countries are paid to cut emissions for us to achieve our goal. The fight against climate change is a moral responsibility for Scotland's academic and engineering expertise, coupled with our outstanding natural resources, which means that it is also an economic opportunity—an opportunity not to be realised, Presiding Officer. It is also important to reflect that some who criticise the climate change bill has not been ambitious enough, while the message is clear. The climate change bill means that Scotland will have the toughest climate legislation in the world. Sweden has legislated 100 per cent target in 2045, which is up to 15 per cent that can be met through the use of international credits. New Zealand has committed to legislating 100 per cent target, but it has not yet set out details of how that will be met. France, Iceland, Norway and others have made political commitments to net zero, but have not set out plans to legislate that. Of course, in typical fashion, the UK Government has acknowledged the need to legislate 100 per cent target, but it has not yet set out details of how it can do that. I believe that our SNP Government is making a commitment in that bill to realise our ambitions, tackling the most important issue. I also wish to pay tribute to the work that has been done by our young people. We have seen climate strikes by school children, young people striking in Scotland and across the UK. Some people were quick to criticise them. I am not, as far as I am concerned. Their world is their future. I want to say that it should be a cause for great optimism that young people are taking a stand in climate change. It is right that we are all challenged to see what we can do more. We all have a moral responsibility to do what we can do to prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change for future generations. Scotland has been praised as a world leader. However, the urgency of climate change means that it is right that we are all challenged to constantly reassess our approach and to see where we can do more. Therefore, we must harness the energy of our young people to challenge ourselves and go further. I know that, as climate change bull, we are doing just that—taking action to deliver the change that we need. We have to do it to safeguard our future, our children's future, my grandchildren's future and the future of generations to come. Thank you very much, Mr Lyon. I call Alexander Burnett. We are followed by Bill Kidd. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I joined members across the chamber who are delighted to see such a bill coming before the Scottish Parliament. As someone who has been involved with renewable energy companies and worked towards improving our environment for most of my life, this is a bill that I very much welcome. At this point, I should note members to my register of interests, particularly those relating to agriculture, forestry, land management, housing and renewable energy. To those who may not be aware, my background is one of environmental consultancy, rural development work in Azerbaijan, renewable energy, sustainable construction and numerous conservation projects. From planting trees and restoring peatlands to saving our red squirrels and championing the pearl muscle, almost all of my activities look to improve our natural environment. I am very proud of the work that all of these projects have done, not only in improving our environment but also in doing so in a sustainable manner, creating jobs and ensuring businesses function. It is clear that this bill has interested many people and I am sure that many more will contribute as it progresses through Parliament. In my constituency, groups such as Tarlin Climate Change and St Ternan's in Bancry have already voiced their concerns and I look forward to working with them to ensure that their points are taken into consideration. The area that I would like to focus on first is that of housing. The debate coincides with a fuel poverty bill being debated at stage 2, and I am due to speak to my own amendments in this tomorrow morning. I am seeking to gain support by identifying residential buildings with low levels of energy efficiency, which require improvements to achieve an EPC band or C or higher by 2030. Last year, the chamber voted in support of the motion, calling for the same commitment from the Scottish Government, and I hope that tomorrow is the first step in achieving that. It is not just members in the chamber who are looking to see improvements in EPC ratings for homes across Scotland. WWF Scotland has repeatedly called for similar action for a variety of reasons. Firstly, this measure would naturally reduce energy costs for homeowners, moving more people out of fuel poverty and into living in warmer homes. However, importantly for this bill, having more energy-efficient homes would be a huge step in reducing carbon emissions. WWF Scotland has noted that it is supportive of measures such as these, but we are keen to see targets set for improving energy efficiency in our homes in this climate change bill. The second area that requires serious attention is our agricultural sector, and that would need to reduce emissions significantly to play their role in a net zero target. We, of course, support NFU Scotland's position that food production is always likely to remain one of the biggest emitting sectors, and a net zero target does not mean reducing agricultural emissions to zero. However, NFU in England now believes that they can reduce their emissions to 35 per cent by 2045, so we await an achievable roadmap for the same from the Scottish Government. There is no doubt that our farmers are experiencing the effects of climate change first-hand, and they accept that more needs to be done to reduce their contribution towards carbon emissions. However, NFU Scotland has called on the Scottish Government for better support in helping farmers to become part of a solution to climate change. The third area that affects climate change is transport. Transformed Scotland flagged that the Scottish Government's current climate change plan and transport proposals are deeply inadequate. From a lack of ambition for clean green buses to zero progress on the electrification of rail routes to Abernedd and Inverness, there is much that can be done already here in Scotland, both to the benefit of the environment and our economy. We want to see the Scottish Government set ambitious targets, and the Scottish Conservatives will support that ambition. However, it is clear that the Scottish Government is still not being ambitious enough, and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee is rightly concerned that there is not sufficient assessment or promotion of the positive opportunities for the economy of setting a net zero target. A stop climate change chaos briefed that it would like to see the bill target reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 or earlier, citing evidence from WWF Scotland and vivid economics that shows that Scotland is capable of achieving such a target. Whilst a net zero target is clearly the preference of many organisations, we must work on building a pathway to ensure that it is possible. We must reach for those ambitious targets, but we need to be mindful that they are realistic. We need to ensure that we have sufficient skilled jobs to make the necessary transition. We need to ensure that businesses work with emerging technology to improve their emissions, and we need to ensure that sectors work together. As CBI Scotland pointed out, we need to ensure that there are collaborative policy frameworks across the whole of the UK, because climate change is an issue without borders. In conclusion, we are very supportive at this stage of the bill, but we will look to strengthen it in later stages. I look forward to working with members, constituents and organisations on hearing how we can achieve our shared ambitions. I thank the young climate change activists in the gallery, who are very much welcome here because it is their enthusiasm that is kept us all going. Today, we are debating and will vote on one of the most significant issues facing humanity. Curbing global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade demands accelerating action. Scientific consensus has existed for decades that global warming exists, and that it is anthropogenic. That means that it is a result of human behaviour. High consumption and little regard for the consequences, even following early warnings of climate change, meant that our behaviour did not change. Humanities' failure to act over the past decades has caused a one-degree Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels, and that cannot be undone. Headlines are already showing the harm that is done to coral reefs, loss of species, rising sea levels, and, within immigration, it is clear that we now have peoples being forced to move due to climate change-related issues such as flooding and poor agricultural productivity. Estimated anthropogenic means that emissions originating in human activity, global warming, is increasing at a rate of 0.2 degrees per decade due to past and on-going emissions. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will, according to IPCC, persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term change in the climate system. One example of such continuing change is seen in rising sea levels. I will repeat this point. The emissions that are already accrued over our period of failure to tackle climate change will affect the planet for centuries to millennia to come. This inactivity has to stop. Today, we have the opportunity to vote on a piece of legislation that could shift Scotland's path towards a sustainable future. In helping to bring this bill through Parliament, we have extensive scientific knowledge to draw on, and, as a nation, we are equipped with abundant natural resources that will enable us to transition more fully to renewable energy. Both the 2015 Paris agreement, which the bill responds to with an increase in our targets and the IPCC 2018 report, inform us with greater evidence and reason for action than ever before. We know from this report that reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt human-influenced global warming within several decades. We also know from the IPCC that the maximum temperature reached is determined by what we and other policy makers from across the world do now. Global warming will be determined by coming at net global human-caused CO2 emissions up to the point that we achieve net zero. What does that mean? It means that we have to act as quickly as possible and we have to act now. Elaine Smith Thank you for taking the intervention. We heard earlier from one of your colleagues about paperless offices, but I wonder if you would agree with me that a lack of recycling of new technology and an ever-increasing scramble for, for example, new mobile phones is also an issue that we should be encouraging engineers to look at that. Those are not recycled enough at all, and that is a problem. Bill Kidd Thank you to Elaine Smith for that, because she is absolutely right. The capitalist madness is that you have to have a new toy every five seconds, which does not do anything about recycling the old one. That is something that we have to address. Thank you very much for bringing that forward. Climate change is serious, and it requires cross-party and global action. Everyone, irrespective of political allegiance, needs to back radical and rapid change. The next generation holds us to account quite rightly. It is on their behalf and on behalf of generations to follow them that we must act. An increasing number of people in Scotland, seven out of 10, agree that tougher action is needed on climate change. Greta Thunberg, who was mentioned earlier by Elaine Smith, is an incredible 16-year-old young woman who inspired 1.4 million school pupils to strike against climate and action and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Incidentally, I just found out yesterday that she is related to Svante Arhienius, who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903 and was the first person to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate the link between increases in CO2 and the earth's surface temperature. Watching Greta Thunberg's TED talk, and everybody should, she spoke profoundly about her responsibilities, she commented, that the one thing that we need more than hope is action. Once we act, hope is everywhere. That statement is stuck with me, and I think that we should not be afraid of action or change, rather we should embrace it. It is in this regard that I am pleased with the Scottish Government's quick response to the IPCC report and its commitment to seek fresh advice. I trust that, as soon as a pathway towards net zero and curbing emissions to 1.5 degrees is drawn up, it will be followed. I believe that that independent advice will be published early next month. I can see that I am near the end of speaking, hopefully only. I will jump to transitions to a sustainable path that would, according to the Tyndall Institute, secure jobs in Scotland for at least two generations in the renewable energy and related sectors. Improved air quality would be another positive benefit. We can also use that to tackle fuel poverty by creating energy-efficient homes that are powered by renewable energy. We can be smarter and crucially. We can use this turning point in history to build a future fit for generations to come. We have all those big words and the history lesson for Mr Kidd. I thought he lifted Stuart Stevenson's speech, but it was far more interesting than what we usually get. I am glad that he is not here when I said that. I came into elected politics after years of campaigning on environmental issues in my community. I saw big powerful companies exploiting the land around my community to make huge profits from their plans to rip up the countryside for opencast or fill in previously opened up countryside with landfill or take over the land for energy production with little thought or care for the impact on the water, the air, the climate or the community, and certainly with little care for the impact on local people. That was my introduction to political campaigning and I have retained a strong interest in it to this day. I believe that the environment and climate change goes to the very essence of the politics that I believe in. It is a class issue, absolutely, and I do not mean that in the way that it is depicted in the media that it is an issue for the chartering classes. It is not because it chimes absolutely 100 per cent with the politics that I believe in, the politics with a socialist philosophy. In order to address that, we have to show international solidarity and co-operation. We have to deal with all people equitably. We have to use and distribute the world's resources in a sustainable and fair way, ensuring that there is justice for all our people, not just the many, not just the powerful, not just the rich, if we are to deal with climate change, then we have to enact those principles. Of course, if the world's climate continues to rise, then we know who will be affected the most, it will be the poor, it will be the weak, it will be the vulnerable and the isolated who suffer the most as we see when we look at marginalised communities, whether that be in South America, the Amazon or sub-Saharan Africa, or indeed around our own coastline and marginal lands. It will be the low-paid who suffer increased food and energy costs, whose homes are the least energy efficient. It will be the poor who suffer most from the impacts of air pollution and respiratory illness. It will be the marginalised and the isolated whose land is flooded, eroded or whose farms turn to desert and ultimately are displaced, homeless, stateless or become refugees. What often happens is when war breaks out because of battles over resources or land. That is the reality of the impact of climate change on the most vulnerable people in our society but in societies across the world. One of the most frustrating local issues that I have had to deal with over my time in Parliament has been the issue of wind energy. I am a great supporter of wind energy, but I have watched us waste one of the greatest opportunities that we have had because I have seen speculators come in with applications for wind farms in communities and one of the latest ones in our area from an Austrian vile count, putting in speculative applications in the hope that they will get permission in very often and most of the time they do. However, the consequence of that is that every time the turbine turns, the profit flutters off to the boardrooms of Paris or Bon or Amsterdam or Madrid or Copenhagen. When that money could have gone back into our communities to fund services to ensure that houses came up to the proper energy standards to get involved in decarbonisation projects to ensure that the community then was enthusiastically endorsing the roll-out of wind energy, but instead we have hugely wasted that opportunity and it is almost all being left unexploited by the private sector when it could have been community owned and could have been led by the people. Let us not repeat that mistake with the offshore wind as it is rolled out. I asked the minister earlier about air passenger due to the fact that she failed to give us an answer. How, on the one hand, can you claim to support the strongest action on climate change but at the same time seek to develop a policy that expands air travel? It just doesn't add up and when will we see a watertight ban on fracking? As we know from what Elaine Smith said and QC's advice, we don't have that at the moment. I have to say to the Government that we don't need another consultation on fracking. What we need is a ban that is watertight. That is what we need on fracking. Much of the relatively easy things have been done on climate change. We now need big ideas and some of those big ideas may only make small but incremental differences. Scottish Labour wants to see the expansion and regulation of public transport. We want to expand bus travel to become a free service across the entire country. I have heard people criticising us for our ambition. I think that if those people had been around when the NHS started up, they would have said, oh no, Mr Bevin, that is far too hard. Don't even attempt it. We have to do these things. It is essential that we do it and I will tell you that I hope that other people will come on board with that. I think that we have to aim high in this debate. The plan is there. We put forward changes to make it more robust. I hope that the Parliament as a whole takes a lead. Maureen Watt, followed by Finlay Carson. This is indeed an important debate to be participating in, as we have heard from members, very thoughtful contributions. The close attention being paid by the young people in the gallery is testament to how important it is. This is the first generation to know exactly how we are living is impacting on the planet. Therefore, we have a duty to do something about it. All of us have, in my view, a duty to leave the planet in a better position than we have found it. Knowing more about the effects that our mode of living is having, it is more important to do that. Of course, that information changes all the time. As there is more research in different aspects of our way of life and in different parts of the planet earth, we must not set our actions in absolute stone but be flexible enough while maintaining our goals. Many people are involved in the field of constructing various models on how we go forward. It is the task of Government to bring forward proposals that are credible and deliverable. For all parties to coalesce around those, as the long-term planning required goes well beyond one parliamentary term. They need to be credible because whatever we do, we must take our population with us. Changing behaviour must be achievable and people will want to know what proposals mean for them and their way of life and what changes to their everyday life they will need to take and what help will be available to them to achieve that. It is not credible, for example, to expect everyone to become vegan and to ditch their car if they live where there are no buses or alternative forms of transport available. If we tell people that they will not be allowed to fly, they will not come with us along with our proposals. Proposals have to be achievable if they are to mean anything and to have a chance of succeeding. Therefore, we must harness the commitment and enthusiasm of our younger generation to encourage older ones to do the change that is required. We need to remind ourselves and our constituents constantly that Scotland is in a world-leading position on climate change already, and our ambitions in this bill are being watched carefully worldwide. It is not often that devolved legislatures are invited to contribute in climate change conferences, as our FM and cabinet secretary have done frequently, and to have discussions in the media between our First Minister and world leaders in the field such as Al Gore. I am proud that Scotland will not use carbon offsetting, which I find personally to be not very ethical. Other countries already have their own problems to deal with. As Elaine Smith, we have seen the recent terrible flooding in countries in southern Africa, and the fight against the effects of climate change is a moral responsibility for Scotland, but we are fortunate here in Scotland to have academic and engineering expertise and to take into account our outstanding natural resources. We have the possibility of meeting our climate change targets and seeing it as an economic opportunity, not just a threat. Many of our young people now want to work in the fields that advise companies on their climate change responsibilities and how they can change their practices to meet those and their corporate social responsibilities in the field. My own daughter, for example, works in this area and the work is increasing exponentially. Several members have mentioned the agricultural sector as a high emitter of carbon emissions. The sector is already doing much to reduce its carbon emissions, and because of the nature of most of the land in Scotland, it is likely to remain an emitter. However, it can also be a huge source of greenhouse gas removal, such as in tree planting, soil management, wetland and peat protection and restoration. As Professor Andy Kerr, the Executive Director of the Edinburgh Centre of Carbon Innovation, said in evidence to the committee, overall, we are not worried so much about exactly which sector emission reduction comes from. The issue is more about whether we are delivering on them overall. It is important that there is a greater debate and honesty around those issues. As I said already, we are fortunate to have the expertise, including the work of the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology and the James Hutton Institute in my constituency, and its Crop Research Centre in Dundee. It is important that, under the bill, as we have done, we maintain our fair share of all international aviation and shipping emissions in our targets, and no other countries do that. It really was an ill-judged attack of Patrick Harvie this afternoon on the oil and gas industry, and it should be noted that Scotland is already meeting its world climate change targets while supporting a strong environment in the domestic oil and gas industry. I mean my last minute. The Just Transition Commission was established to advise Scottish ministers on the manner of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. I support the bill proceeding, and I look forward to Scotland maintaining its position as a world leader in climate change. Finlay Carson, followed by Stuart McMillan. Members to my register of interests and my membership of the NFUS. I am delighted to be speaking to today's stage 1 debate, both as a member of the Eclair Committee, but also as a former farmer and now the Scottish Conservatives Spokesman on the natural environment. I wish to share the sentiments of other members in thanking the clerks and the stakeholders who have provided evidence during the young, including the young climate change activists who have been with us today and outside the Parliament. However, I must go along with other committee members and express my frustration and disappointment at the failure of the Scottish Government to respond timuously to our report. Twenty-four hours is far from enough time to respond constructively. The Scottish Government will happily grandstand on past achievements and talk tough on climate change, but responding only a day before this debate sends out a very poor signal to those of us, not only in the chamber but in our communities, including the young activists who joined us this morning, who want to see meaningful fact-based actions that stand up to scrutiny. It has left us very little time to digest just how the Government is planning to take on board the committee's recommendations and progress in tackling climate change. Moving on, we must all play our part in tackling climate change and we must strive for the right balance to be struck when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have heard extensive evidence at the committee with organisations, whatever their position on net zero emissions, agreeing that, while transformational change will not happen overnight, there was an absolute recognition and agreement that this generation must, without fail, be the generation that puts the policies in place to safeguard the future of the planet and future generations. I believe that our report responding to the draft bill has taken the correct signs and evidence-based approach to understanding the drivers of climate change, its impacts on future risks and how we can reduce emissions. Science-based approach will give clear direction and setting targets and ultimately achieving a net zero target when the science shows the pathway. In light of the recent IPCC report, both the UK and the Scottish Governments have written to the committee on climate change for further advice on setting potentially more ambitious emission reduction targets. I sincerely hope that a scientific pathway to net zero can be identified and that we can have options to take the right pathway to achieve that. There is also a case to be made for stretch targets to encourage investment and innovation to go further. I look forward to that report being published in 2 May and to further scrutinising the advice and evidence at the clear committee. I hope that the Government will allocate the appropriate time needed to ensure that we have good robust legislation that gives us the right choices and makes sure that the right choices are taken for Scotland in the global environment. By right choices, I mean policy decisions that consider the wider implications of policies, for example ensuring that displacement of production does not occur, pushing demand-driven production to other parts of the world where the impacts are actually more damaging. For example, a forced reduction in livestock production in Scotland would only result in the demand for meat being met by increased imports, potentially from South America, for example, resulting in further reduction of our invaluable rainforests. The right choice in this case would be accelerated and increased investment to improve animal husbandry and grass and feed production that enhance a more efficient production, which will arguably have a greater impact on the reduction of greenhouse gases. We need to change the narrative when it comes to agriculture and land use. Far too many people take the lazy option, particularly when it comes to non-meat eaters, the vegan and vegetarian brigade, that portray agriculture as the villain of the piece when, indeed, science suggests to a great extent that it can be the solution. I believe that innovation and technology can be not only at the heart of emission reduction targets but at the heart of a new, revived and economically sustainable agricultural industry. We must seize new opportunities and I call on the Scottish Government to take a greater emphasis on developing new technologies and to give a clear commitment to change what will drive private investment and accelerate change. Mark Ruskell I have tried to have Greg's vegan sausage roll. Perhaps he might want to acknowledge the fact that consumer trends are towards reducing meat consumption. Surely he recognises that that creates an opportunity for Scottish agriculture to respond to that through horticulture products and through better quality meat but less of it being sold. When we are looking at picking low-hanging fruit, I think that turning the whole of the Scottish nation into vegetarians is probably one of the last options that we need to look at. Jim Sgea of the IPCC said that there is a clear need for research and development to land management by energy, carbon capture and storage and a forestation to set long-term direction. There are many technologies and actions that we can take now and make quick gains. Government can create an economy that can seize that low-hanging fruit. The need for action is not lost in the public, with a poll conducted by Stop Climate Chaos Scotland ahead of this debate, showing that one in three Scots are more concerned with climate change than they were a year ago, as well as almost 80 per cent of respondents were either more concerned about climate change as they were 12 months ago. The poll also highlighted that seven in 10 Scots support taking tougher action to reduce emissions and transport food and homes. As a member of the clear committee, I would like to stress my support for this bill at decision time today, as it marks an important step forward in tackling climate change. We should not rush this process through, and the cabinet secretary responds to stage 1 hints at wanting to have a stage 2 debate before summer recess. Again, that strikes of not taking action. We cannot afford to squander this opportunity. Climate change can be an issue that this Parliament cannot take without looking at leaving a positive legacy for future generations. Can I stress to members that coming to a close means coming to a close? Stuart McMillan, who is the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I will do as I am told. I generally am pleased to be speaking in this debate to discuss one of the most pertinent issues of our time, which is climate change. A few reasonable people could genuinely argue that climate change is not something that requires immediate attention. However, unfortunately around the world, we see people making baseless arguments to fit their own political agenda. Nothing has highlighted this more than President Trump pulling America out of the Paris climate agreement. It would be easy to stand here and criticise instances around the world of policy makers or leading businesses, people denying or ignoring the extent of the environmental crisis facing our planet. However, we can only directly control what we do here in Scotland and through this Scottish Parliament. I believe that we generally are making positive strides forward, but there is still more to do. The report in front of us from the committee is very much welcome, and there was a bit in the exact summary that I thought was extremely accurate. That was this aspect, on climate change is an intergenerational justice issue, and the committee believes that we need to act now to help future generations to inherit a world that is sustainable. I do not think that anyone can argue with that. It is only within the last 20 years or so that I can remember that anyone talking about recycling. 20 years ago, everything seemed to go to the same bin. We went to landfill. In the recent BBC documentary about waste, it dug up a site previously used for landfill in the 1970s. Plastic items in clothing had not degraded at all. The onus is on is all, not just to recycle but to reuse. We do live in a materialistic and disposable society instead of continuing to use all the items that begin to show their age. Unfortunately, we have been them and buy something new. In 1985, I studied in Germany, I studied in Dornton. I learned a lot about my time studying there, but it was the first place that I went to recycling that took place, whether it was glass, newspapers or plastic. When I came back home, that did not exist in required and certainly in Scotland. The price of many items of clothing these days makes the process so easy and affordable that we just ditch it. However, continuing to transport the vast quantities of products to Scotland comes also at an environmental cost. Many of those items come from the Far East, from countries such as China, Vietnam and Thailand. To import items from those countries across the oceans has a massive environmental impact and we are all guilty as we consume those products. Across Scotland in 2017, for the first time, we recycled more than we sent to landfill. That has progressed and I welcome that, but at the same time, it has taken a long, long time to get to that point. It is fitting that, in the same week, the Scottish Parliament debates both climate change and transport as both intrinsically are linked. Last year, we saw rail travel increase yet again, but, disappointingly, we have seen a drop in bus travel. The Scottish Government has doubled its investment infrastructure to support cycling and is also working to increase charging points for electric cars. I want to touch on something that is regarding the IPCC report, where it touches on all businesses and individuals who have actually got a part to play. I generally welcome an announcement last week from a business in my constituency, which is McGill's buses. They have invested a further £4.75 million on 26 new buses meeting the new ULEV standards. That is a £24 million investment over the course of the past five years to improve their environmental impact. That touches on a point regarding Mr Burnett. Unfortunately, I could not take my intervention earlier, but it is crucial that everybody has that part to play. Mr Carson even vegans. They have got their part to play as well. Unfortunately, I will defend the McGreen colleague here, because it was unfortunate the way that he responded to me earlier. I generally thought that it was an unfair attack on him. I generally think that this climate change bill means that Scotland will have the toughest climate change legislation in the world. Nowhere else in the world has any nation committed to targets as ambitious as Scotland, and that is testament to the determination of the Scottish Government. By 2030, Scotland will cut emissions by two thirds, and unlike other nations, we will not use carbon offsetting where other countries are paid to cut emissions for us to achieve our goal. I very much welcome that. The Scottish Government has also said that we will go even further if the UK Committee on Climate Change advises that more ambitious targets are now feasible. The current secretary mentioned that in her opening comments, and I very much welcome that again. The bill maintains annual targets, meaning that the Scottish Government can be held to account for progress every year. No other country has that. Most other countries, with domestic climate change targets, have interim targets for 2020 and or 2030 only. I do not think that for one minute MSPs, the public, are actually shy at challenging government and politicians who never have been and will never be. I very much welcome that. I, too, want to thank all the younger people who are certainly in the chamber today, but also who are really pushing this agenda for our nation. My final point, Presiding Officer, is to conclude. I genuinely believe that every generation needs to leave the planet in a better way than it was handed over to them. We do not own the planet. We are merely custodians of it in our time here. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr McMillan. We move to the closing speeches. Very tight in timings. Alex Rowley, no more than six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like others, I would first like to thank Gillian Martin and the committee for the work that they have done on producing this report today, which is stage one that we will support. I would like to focus perhaps in a couple of areas. Further consideration is needed on the possibility of establishing an independent just transition commission underpinned by statute. I do hope that the Government will take that quite seriously and look to establish that just transition. If we are going to make progress, Liam McArthur spoke about the low-line fruit that had been picked so far. That is true, whereas we have done well. The closure a long-anit power station, for example, was a big, big contributor to that success. If the next stage is going to be much tougher and if we have to achieve the target and, hopefully, a net zero target, then we need to ensure that there is a just transition. I have to say that the evidence today shows that I think that the Scottish Government sincerely needs to do a lot more work. Transform Scotland says that transport in Scotland is Scotland's largest source of emissions, where there has been almost no progress since 1990. While other sectors of the economy have made progress, there has been a failure to decarbonise the Scottish transport sector. It talks about Scotland's fastest growing emissions source, which is aviation. Neil Findlay earlier put the question to the Cabinet Secretary and asked about the airport departure duty. The fact that the SNP Government has a policy of cutting that by 50 per cent and getting rid of it completely does not sit as joined up Government. The cabinet secretary's response to that was that it was another minister, another cabinet secretary. It was not her brief, but it highlights the lack of joined up thinking and joined up Government when it comes to those issues and when it comes to a just transition. Alexander Burnett talked about housing and fuel poverty. The fuel poverty bill that is making its way through right now, in my view, lacks ambition. It lacks clarity on how it will achieve some of the objectives such as being able to get energy efficiency ratings built into, for example, the private rented sector. Again, we do not have the detail on how we are going to take that forward and how we are going to pay for what is needed to be done. I say that if we want to take people with us, then we need to create the opportunities and the jobs. So far, there has been a failure. Burn Island fabrication is now in a position where it is unlikely that it will get any of the jacket work for the latest round-the-offshore renewables. That is a tragedy when most of this work is all getting done abroad. You can imagine how the workers are there and the unions that represent them feel about a just transition. The Scottish Government needs to do far more. As Neil Findlay pointed out, there has been such a missed opportunity, community ownership of renewables, public ownership of renewables at the local level, a complete failure of community energy companies. I read this morning a brief on a community energy company that was established in Nottingham. I say that I am very successful at that. I say that the Government needs to start to think about being ambitious and how we engage and involve so that we can look to the good practice elsewhere. Why are there no jobs being created in Scotland? Why are there little jobs with the renewable sector in Scotland? What is the role of the Government? Personally, I believe that the Government is failing in those areas. We also have different organisations. For example, we say that, for developing countries and for the millions of people living in poverty, missing that 1.5 degree Celsius target is literally a matter of life or death. Warming over 1.5 means that millions of people are exposed to droughts, heat waves, floods and intense competition for resources that lead to unprecedented levels of climate migration. Again, that is a big threat that comes forward. That is stage 1. We support the report today, but I say that we can be far more ambitious, but we really need to focus on the just transition so that workers in Scotland know that there will be a transition and that jobs will be protected as we move forward to tackle climate change and reach the net zero targets that I hope other parties in here will support. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this excellent debate, especially having had the privilege of being on the Eclare Committee for some of the time while it was taking evidence on this issue. I pay tribute to that committee, its convener, its members and its clerks. Back in 2018, when the Eclare Committee began looking at the bill, I met with various organisations, charities and individuals, both in the committee and outside of it, who impressed upon me the need to be radical and ambitious when legislating. It was clear back then, and it remains clear today, that decisive action is required. I am so silly welcome that, on this issue, there is a broad consensus across the chamber about what is necessary. Surely, WWF Scotland is right to state that climate change is the biggest crisis facing the world, and Scotland must act urgently to meet the challenge. However, while it is the role of this Parliament to set out the legislative framework and to debate the extent to which we go forward in the struggle against the effects of climate change, we should also recognise those people across Scotland who, day in, day out, are campaigning for climate change mitigation. As the recent demonstrations involving young people have shown, there is an intergenerational passion for this issue. Those demonstrations and the one outside Parliament today remind us that we need to get this right, not just for the current generation but for future generations, too. That is a point that has been made by Gillian Martin, Claudia Beamish and Angus MacDonald, among others. Similarly, we must also bear in mind those on the ground, far from this place, who are already doing their bit to reduce their carbon footprint and, in particular, to cut emissions where possible. There is a wide variety of sectors across Scotland who will ultimately need to adapt to any legislative changes that we initiate. Indeed, many sectors have already begun to adapt voluntarily. One example is housing, where businesses are looking at different ways to build more energy-efficient homes, as Maurice Golden spoke about. There is the passive house movement, in particular, which I have had the privilege of meeting in the Highlands. There is also transport, where bus companies are beginning to invest in green buses and retrofitting existing vehicles to reduce output. There is also the food and drink sector, where organisations such as the Scotch Whiskey Association have noticed that they are close to achieving zero waste of landfill. They say that, in 2016, non-fossil fuels accounted for 21 per cent of energy use, up from just 3 per cent in 2008. Indeed, many representative bodies across Scotland acknowledged the need to take action now, particularly notable by the words of CBI Scotland, who have said that it supports the increased ambition to reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, because we protect the economy, society and the environment. It is clear that there is broad recognition across society that action is needed and that many are doing all that they can to enact such change. Others have spoken about agriculture, and I would like to dwell here for a moment. Scottish agriculture has recognised that it faces a challenge to reduce its carbon output, but it is clear from my conversations with farmers and crofters that the sector not only prys itself on its existing stewardship of land, but it is positive about making further changes in the way that it works and operates in the future to cut emissions, and whether that is investing in new machinery to improve efficiency or planting new hedgerows and trees to sequestrate emissions or investing in new feeds to reduce methane output. Indeed, the Eclare report noted Lord Diebwn saying that credit and gratitude should be afforded to the farming community for the work that it has done so far. Much of this work has been carried out voluntarily by farmers and crofters for years, decades even. In pursuing the aims and ambitions of this bill, we must ensure that we do not overburden the livestock sector, a sector that has enough struggles already with unnecessary regulation or impossible targets. NFU Scotland has said that climate change is critically important, and it believes that we will achieve much better outcomes in the long run if people are encouraged to tackle emissions rather than be forced to through the use of regulation. If farmers are able to take a voluntary approach, that may potentially enhance their business. According to the Scottish Government's climate change plan, the agriculture and related land use sector has seen a 25.8 per cent fall in emissions between 1990 and 2015 because of sustained efficiency improvements in farming and better fertiliser management. For example, that is positive and further highlights the actions that our farmers and crofters are taking to manage land more sustainably. People and representatives of the sector have raised concerns about how carbon capture calculations are measured. The vice president of the NFU said that, if carbon capture calculations properly identified what is being sequestrated by our hills, uplands and peatlands and fairly balanced that against emissions from livestock grazing, that should be promoted. I acknowledge the work of Mark Ruskell in particular on the committee about the issue of measurement of on-farm activity. We will all be aware of farms such as Kirkton and Orkdartyre farms near Crenlaric, who have been researching how different breeds of sheep are better adapted to changing climate in Scotland's uplands hills. All Langton Lee's farm in the Borders has sought to install new turbines to exploit the fact that they face a westerly wind and have invested in a slatted shed, which has meant a reduction in the amount of tractor fuel that is required to bail, gather and haul straw back to the farm. Those are just some real-life examples of how our farmers are rising to the challenge of reducing carbon output. I want to briefly turn to another point that others have made, and that is how the changes that we make can help some of the poorest countries around the world. Many countries around the world face the brunt of devastating impacts of climate change, and it is not only our duty to make changes, but it is a moral responsibility, too. Neil Findlay was absolutely correct when he said that it is an issue about international solidarity and the effects of climate change on the poor and that those who will suffer most will be those least able to bear it. I had the pleasure of taking part in Skiaf's Wee Box campaign that was launched last month with others in the chamber. The funds that were raised from that and other activities that Skiaf run all year round help to support projects such as Climate Change Project and Climate Challenge programme, which supports communities that are affected by climate change. In closing, the Scottish Conservatives support the bill at stage 1. We recognise the need to act and be ambitious. We believe that actions to limit global warming should be focused on those that provide for jobs, innovation and investment in technology. Before we can set a net zero target date, an identifiable pathway needs to be outlined to zero emissions and the potential consequences understood. We must do all that we can to meet the calls from the IPCC to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius and to curb the devastating effects of climate change for future generations. I call Roseanna Cunningham to wind up in the debate and nine minutes will take us to three minutes to five. I thank all members for their various contributions to today's debate. There were a lot of speakers, so I am afraid that I will not be able to mention everyone in my closing remarks. I feel, however, that I should make some response to the issue of the late arrival of the Scottish Government's response to the committee report, which was raised by more than one person. I note that Standing Order rule 9.8 lays down a strict timetable for committee report publication. There is indeed a protocol for government response, but people reading that protocol would discover that it actually goes so far as to allow for post-debate publication, which I am sure would have had a wee getting even greater pelters than I have had this afternoon. In an ideal world, there would have been more time for us to make the response, but it was a very large report with a lot of recommendations. Sadly, there just wasn't enough time for us to be able to do it earlier than we did. A number of strategic issues came up more than once, and I would like to pick up on some of the key themes. First, I appreciate that the Scottish Government's evidence-based approach to target setting has led to a somewhat unusual situation now, where we are awaiting further advice from the CCC at the time of the stage 1 debate. I do not think that any of us would have wanted to have been in that position, but that is where we are. It is right that Scotland responded quickly with legislative proposals in response to the Paris agreement with the introduction of the bill. We are one of the first countries to have done so. It is not that you would notice from the tenor of the debate. It is also right that we asked for updated CCC advice in light of the new evidence in the IPCC special report. Clearly, we now need to wait and see what the CCC advice is on 2 May. The Scottish Government will act quickly to amend the bill if the CCC says that even more ambitious targets are now credible. I will keep Parliament fully informed of our response. In my opening statement, I emphasised the importance of Scotland's evidence-based approach to tackling climate change. The committee's stage 1 report has recognised the important role that independent expert advice from the CCC plays within this as statutory advisers. The Scottish Government is mindful of a wide range of other evidence, too. Last month, I had a good meeting with Vivid Economics, the authors of the recent WWF Scotland commission report on pathways to net zero emissions in Scotland. That report drew on 2018 work from the Royal Society on greenhouse gas removal technologies. Both reports have become available since the CCC last provided advice on Scottish targets. I am grateful to both organisations for their positive and constructive contributions. I recently visited the Green Cow facility at Scotland's rural college to learn more about research and innovation around climate-friendly farming. Of course, the Scottish Government is proud to be hosting the meeting in Edinburgh this week of the world's leading climate scientists as they prepare the next IPCC review reports. I am listening carefully to all credible sources of evidence, but Claudia Beamish referred to the Government waiting for the approval of the CCC, somewhat overlooking the fact that the CCC is embedded in the 2009 act as our statutory independent scientific advisers. I take the point that the cabinet secretary is making, but it is my understanding that it is possible for the Scottish Government or any Scottish Government, while this bill, this act will exist, to give reasons why it does not accept the advice of the CCC and could have gone further. Indeed, it did not accept all the advice on the climate change plan. Those calling for us to go beyond the advice of the CCC, and there have been a few in this chamber today, must consider what that would mean for an evidence-based approach more widely when it comes to targets. It would undoubtedly result in distracting arguments about which evidence to follow when the real aim is meeting the goals of the Paris agreement. It walks away from certainty and scientific evidence, instead it puts opinion into the driving seat. We all need to act if the Paris agreement goals are to be met. That means not only all countries, but all communities, individuals and businesses. There has not been much said about businesses this afternoon, so I want to say something about that. Some are leading the way. I recently met one major global firm whose Scottish operations have reduced their emissions by 35 per cent since 2010. Those efforts have also helped them to save money. An example is that they established a behaviour change scheme for staff, which allowed an individual worker to identify energy wastage from the programming of equipment, which was then addressed not only in that one plant but across others using the same equipment. One example of practical action from businesses is that there are many more, and I have asked them to go out and make that point to their colleagues in other business areas as well, and to use the example of what they have done in that positive way. Scotland has half its greenhouse gas emissions. We should all be very proud of that world-leading achievement. That bill will provide the framework to deliver the second half of the decarbonisation journey all the way to net zero. The opportunities and challenges of the second half of the transition will, of course, be very different to those that we have experienced so far. However, what remains unchanged is the value of political consensus. I entirely appreciate the level of interest and expectation around the next climate change plan. Once we have the CCC's updated advice, we will look again at the current plan, which will need to be reviewed after the bill. However, climate change plans are major strategic documents affecting all parts of our economy. Every person in Scotland has a trade-off between rapid production, including stakeholder and public consultation, and the extent and robustness of the content of the plan itself. If I may turn to the issue of costs, mentioned by John Scott among others, future Governments will decide what actions to take to deliver the targets, the costs of which will be affected by future scientific understanding and the availability of technology. It is not reasonable to expect to be able to describe future costs with accuracy. Indeed, and in any case, as Stuart Stevenson interjected, the cost of not tackling climate change will be greater. It is also vitally important that the remainder of Scotland's decarbonisation journey is fair for all. The Government is committed to a transition that continues to bring together our social, economic and climate objectives, and in which no one is left behind, raised by a number of members, including Claudia Beamish and Alec Rowley. The Just Transition Commission that we have established has been tasked with providing the Scottish Government with practical advice on how to maximise the opportunities and manage the challenges of decarbonisation in relation to fair work, tackling inequalities and poverty, and delivering a sustainable and inclusive labour market. The independent commission chaired by Professor Jim Ski started work in January and will advise on how to shift to a carbon neutral economy in a way that is fair for all. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to further consider how the bill can reflect our commitments to a Just Transition. Following the separate debate on this in Parliament in January, I can confirm that we are giving this further consideration, and I will provide an update to Parliament before stage 2 begins. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to give further consideration to the possibility of setting sector-specific emissions reduction targets. We will do so and provide an updated response once the CCC's advice is available. Once again, I need to remind members of multiple interconnections between sectors that sector targets could make substantially more difficult to factor into the detriment of overall success. That is particularly the case with agriculture, mentioned by a number of members, where the inventory does not reflect all that farmers do to reduce emissions and data revisions can have a disproportionate effect on specific sectors as well. Our current view remains that the existing framework of economy-wide targets is working well and provides the necessary flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. To conclude, Presiding Officer, this is a vitally important bill for every person, business and community in Scotland. The bill strengthens Scotland's place as a world leader in tackling the defining global challenge of our time. It sets the most ambitious targets of any country in the world and ensures that those always remain under review. It further strengthens our already uniquely rigorous framework of accountability around the targets. It will effectively support action over the years and decades to come, as Scotland delivers net zero emissions as soon as possible. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate on the climate change emissions. The protocol between the Parliament and the Government in relation to the handling of committee business sets out in paragraph 41. The Scottish Government should normally respond to any committee report not later than A, two months after publication of the report or B, where, exceptionally, the debate is to be within two months of publication a week before the chamber debates the report. Members receive the Government's response to the stage 1 committee report on the climate bill at 12.43pm yesterday. That gave us barely 24 hours to read and digest the implications of the Government's response ahead of this afternoon's debate on this critical legislation. No letter was issued to the committee to explain the nature and reason for the delay. Presiding Officer, can I ask for your advice on whether the protocol has indeed been breached and, if so, what your advice is to the Government and Parliament on the matter? I thank the member for advance notice of the point of order. I would also note that the issue was raised at the meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau earlier today. I believe that the minister, the cabinet secretary, referred to it in her concluding remarks. It is the case that a protocol does exist, covering the issue of how the Government should respond to committee reports. The protocol covers best practice, however it also covers the circumstances in which the Government is not able to respond to a committee in good time and has to respond on the day. I believe that that is the situation that the Government has found itself in. I would suggest that the member pursues this matter or the committee in fact pursues this matter with the Government directly. However, I thank him for the point of order and I am sure that the Government has noted the point that he makes.