 The next final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 1, 4, 3, 6, 1 in the name of Maurice Golden on the special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now on a call on Maurice Golden to open the debate? Mr Golden, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The recent IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees paints a stark and deeply concerning picture if humanity does not get to grips with climate change and limit the rise of global warming to 1.5 degrees. Even just half a degree more would see 60 million people in cities around the world at risk of drought, an extra 2 billion would be faced with extreme heat waves, and the Arctic would be ice-free. Not once every century, but once every decade, and we would stand to lose almost all the world's coral reefs. We would not be spared here in Scotland. We could be at risk of increased flooding, both from rivers and along our coasts. Our wildlife has already been affected as detailed in last year's RSPB report on the state of the UK's birds. The IPCC report makes clear that the duty to act is shared by all countries, and it urges them to go further than they have ever done before. However, that is too important an issue to get wrong, so I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has joined the UK and Welsh Governments in seeking updated advice from the Committee on Climate Change in the wake of the IPCC report. I want to be clear that the Scottish Conservatives are committed to transitioning Scotland to a low-carbon economy through an evidence-based approach that delivers for both our environment and our communities. The success that we have seen so far is to be welcomed—a 45 per cent reduction in emissions through decarbonising our electricity and waste sectors. We cannot rest on our laurels, though. I note that the theme arising from the recent sessions in the Claire committee is that there is a need for action in the short term to support our long-term goals. With Scotland's interim targets revised up to 66 per cent by 2030 and 78 per cent by 2040, we must look at other sectors such as transport, which has effectively seen no reductions in emissions since 1990. For example, on the commitment to phase out new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032, that raises more questions than it answers. What are the timescales and costs for rolling out charging infrastructure? How will vehicle uptake schemes be improved? How will the grid capacity issues be identified and resolved? The CCC has made clear that, without new firm policies, reductions in Scottish emissions are unlikely to continue into the 2020s, and that must be addressed. Of course, the temptation is to look at the end goal, keeping the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees by 2100, but we must consider the transition to that. I recently asked Professor Jim Ski from the IPCC about that, an overshoot scenario where we get to 1.5 degrees by 2100 but exceed it in intervening years. He was clear that doing so would have disastrous consequences for our planet and population. The Scottish Conservatives have set out a comprehensive package of measures to tackle climate change from supporting regulatory frameworks for district heating to investment in energy storage solutions to decarbonising, transport and much more. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention. I wonder if the Scottish Conservatives list of policies to tackle climate change does the member and does his party accept the scientific reality that 90 per cent of oil and gas reserves that we know to be in the North Sea nevermind what might be explored and located in the future must remain in the ground unburnt? We have a major commitment to climate change, but we have also got to be realistic that not just the drilling of new oil and gas reserves providing thousands of jobs, particularly in the north east but throughout the supply chain and throughout Scotland and indeed the decommissioning costs associated with the infrastructure already in place. 471 platforms should be progressed here in Scotland, that is why we need more recycling of all that steel done here in Scotland and that will in turn create jobs. It is no surprise coming from the Green Party, which to my mind has the least credible environmental policies in this chamber. This week, we have gone further stir still and I am saying plans to build a Scottish plastics recycling centre to concentrate the reuse and recycling of resources here in Scotland while creating jobs and reducing environmental impacts. We want to promote a shift away from our disposable culture, calling for little fines to be increased to help change and reinforce the message that the discarding waste is not acceptable. We want people to be better educated about the environmental impact of food production. A new wave of allotments and school farms in our towns and cities will help people to make environmentally informed choices about supporting Scottish grown produce. Creating city-wide woodlands, green spaces and habitats will not only clean our atmosphere of pollution and act as a carbon sink, it will also improve health, economic and social outcomes, particularly among our most deprived communities. Those measures are deliverable now, but their impact will lay the foundation for the progress that we need in the years ahead. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to champion that approach, building the low-carbon society that we need and ensuring that aspiration is backed by action that delivers positive outcomes for people and planet alike. David Attenborough concluded Blue Planet 2, saying that the future of the planet is in our hands. Let's take that step together in building a better future now. I move the motion in my name. You don't need to move motions in members' debates. It's a little technicality for you to mark to remember. I call Claudia Beamish to be followed by Mark Ruskell. I thank Maurice Golden for bringing the report and highlighting it to the chamber for debate. The IPCC special report is the loudest call for immediate climate action that we have had. Members will agree that the report's findings of climate change's damaging effects are really concerning, both the potential and now the inevitable, making for overwhelming and motivational reading. The report has been highlighted by Maurice Golden in his speech. It is right that this Parliament should feel the weight of climate change on its shoulders. Climate change is the defining issue of this century. The impacts of the IPCC describe how it will be felt by all. I want to thank many of those in my constituency and beyond that in my brief, who I've had conversations with, with empowered activists who are young particularly, who are hearing stories from those around the world as well on climate change frontlines and, indeed, thoughts from my own grandson on a litter pick on the beach. In the year of young people, intergenerational climate justice must be at the forefront of our minds. I am proud that Scottish Labour has committed to the fight for the upcoming bill to include the target of net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 at the latest and the 77 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, supported by a long-term statutory just transition commission within the bill that is answerable to Parliament. It is our duty to step up the global climate justice fight while giving Scotland the time to adapt in a just way. I wonder if the cabinet secretary can tell me if the climate change bill policy is in line with a 1.5 or a 2-degree centigrade target. Furthermore, how do those targets translate in terms of Scotland's carbon budget usage? The IPCC authors have said that this is a political decision and it is important to know how our bill lines up. Since the publication of the draft bill, the evidence base has grown on the feasibility of a net zero emissions target by 2050 at the latest, such as by the Royal Academies and the European Climate Foundation. There has also been a new study highlighting Scotland's huge, natural and negative emissions potential. Is the Government itself actively, I wonder, considering expanding the evidence base? If we are to get steeper targets, innovation must be accelerated. With leadership from the Aldersgate group and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation to name but two, an increasing number of businesses are crying out for the political will that is required to drive markets with a clear signal. Ambitious targets will create the catalyst for greater technological innovation and encourage other countries to also set stronger targets, making additional domestic effort possible. That should be viewed as an opportunity and the Scottish Government's financial assessments do not build in the co-benefits of mitigation that we will enjoy, such as improved health by reducing air pollution and fuel poverty, nor do they take into account the enormous financial risk of inaction. Expenditure on climate change is simply prudent. The motion refers to the circular economy, and that is an area that needs great leadership if we are to seize opportunities in remanufacturing. While initiatives like the deposit return scheme for Scotland are welcome, there are also concerns about other types of waste, including the need for new arrangements for construction waste and clearer policies on food waste. I look forward to hearing the Scottish Government's proposals for the scheme, as I was particularly impressed with the Norway model for a producer responsibility fee. The Government has argued that it is impractical to set a long-term target without a prescriptive pathway, but we know the consequences of letting global warming rise above 1.5 degrees are unthinkable for people and wildlife, and we know the financial cost of tackling climate change will rise the longer we drag it out, and we know how important the interim targets are as well. Let's continue the legacy of the 2009 act. Let's be consensual in looking forward, being adventurous, being brave and being leaders, taking on climate change together as a Parliament of conscience, and setting striving targets with a sense of fierce urgency. I thank Maurice Golden for bringing forward this debate as part of his personal Huggahuskey week. In the second session, I took part in this Parliament's first-ever inquiry into climate change. I will read to the chamber one of the key conclusions. A radical response on a huge, almost unprecedented scale must start to be entrenched in policy now. A massive possibility for change exists at government, business and individual levels. That was just over 12 years ago—12 years in which we have seen the biggest transformation of our electricity supply in a century—a transformation that has delivered jobs, delivered security of supply and cut the carbon. We can see that change around us, as graceful, onshore wind turbines have sprung up while the giant fossil power stations of old have been finally put to sleep. Today's wonderful news is that train manufacturer Talgo is moving to the site of that last coal-fired power station at Longannet, bringing 1,000 jobs to the power of the low-carbon economy, driving that just transition for workers. However, that leadership and market intervention on electricity has masked a failure in other sectors such as farming, transport and heating to get to grips with the transformational change that is needed. This Government has rolled back on ambition in the recent climate plan, subsidising inaction on the back of past renewable energy success. The national farmers union came to committee yesterday and told us that they have not had the message from this Government that climate change is the top priority for farming. So there has been a failure of leadership here. Alex Salmond talked about Scotland being the Saudi Arabia of renewables. That was a successful message sent to the electricity sector over a decade ago, but why is the ambition and the leadership so poor for farming? Again, there were warnings there in the inquiry report from the second session. I will quote again, that climate change should be fully integrated into a review of Scottish agriculture strategy to ensure that the sector can achieve consistent reductions in emissions. Instead, emissions from agriculture remain largely static over the last decade. The climate plan proposes a reduction of just 9% for the next 12 years, far less than other sectors. It is no wonder, because the subsidy regime for farming is largely blind to climate change. There is no strong regulation driving innovation and performance like we see with energy. Hope-based voluntarism is not enough. Joined up regulation, education marketing should have been in place years ago. The Irish have established it through their Origin Green programme. It's time we did it here, too. With farming, there are clearly tools in the box that are not being used to cut emissions, easy ones, like mandatory soil testing, to reduce fertiliser use, linked into a nitrogen budget for Scotland. Integrating trees into a farm system should be a no-brainer for carbon sequestration, biodiversity building materials and biomass fuel, yet we see virtually zero uptake of agroforestry in Scotland, due to the poor design of financial incentives. We cannot deliver the critical net zero emissions target that the world demands without real change. Keeping on with the same model of farming, just slightly more efficient, will not deliver what the science tells us that we have to do. Business as usual also flies in the face of consumer trends, which inevitably mean that we will all be eating far less meat in the decades ahead. If Scottish farming meets this challenge head-on, it can adapt and survive. Focus on higher value livestock production and horticulture, but a head-in-the-sand approach will not deliver food security for the nation or financial security for the farming sector. The IPCC report has just given us a further 12 years to deliver that change, and there is no place to hide for failing sectors, especially farming, heating and transport. The implications are unimaginable if we waver off track and do not take the early action necessary, but we must also remain focused on the benefits to health and new livelihoods if we can deliver those solutions now. I thank Maurice Golden for bringing this debate. I acknowledge his long-standing interest and strong track record, particularly in the promotion of the circular economy. I recognise the importance of the issues that are highlighted in the IPCC's latest report, and, as Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell have emphasised, the stark warning of the challenges that we face but also the consequences of failing to act that it lays bare. As I said in response to the cabinet secretary's statement in Parliament earlier this month, I welcome the Scottish Government's confirmation that further advice from the UK Committee on Climate Change has been sought in light of those findings. I look forward to the advice informing the approach that we take on updating and strengthening our own climate change legislation, particularly in areas such as heat and transport. However, that strikes me as a slightly unusual topic for debate in a member's debate, and I acknowledge the reference to the recycle room in Clydebank and join Maurice Golden in saluting their commendable efforts. However, as I said, it strikes me as a debate that lends itself more to an afternoon session with amendments and a vote. The motion's reference to the impact on rising sea levels, although it provides me with an opportunity perhaps to reflect on some more localised aspects of this extremely important debate. Not for a second do I suggest that those who have done least to create man-made climate change are not those who are most at risk of bearing its brunt, but it would be dangerous to assume that the effects will not be felt closer to home, that the threats are not present around our own shores. I was struck by an article in New York Times back in September that explored the potential impact of rising sea levels on Orkney's heritage. About half of Orkney's 3,000 sites, many built before Stonehenge or the Pyramids, are under threat from those changes. Some are already washed away, said the New York Times. The UN Environment Programme published a world heritage and tourism in a changing climate report, concluding that the heart of Neolithic Orkney is, quote, already clearly being significantly and negatively impacted by these climate impacts. Because of the importance of the sea and Neolithic life in Orkney, many archaeological sites are on the coast, and at least half are under threat from coastal erosion. That has an economic bearing as well. I had no doubt that much of Orkney's economy derys from the strong tourism sector that we have, as well as the environmental imperative. That underscores the economic imperative to take action. More generally, the Scottish Coastal Heritage at Risk project at the University of St Andrews, which maps vulnerable sites across Scotland found as an island and seafaring nation, Scotland's political, social, religious and economic heritage is abundantly represented at the coast in forts, castles, harbours, piers, chapels, settlement sites, burial monuments, fishing stations, kelp kilns, coal mines, saltpans and even chilly seawater swimming pools. Those diverse heritage sites hold Scotland's stories, but in Orkney's sea level rise, the increasing frequency of storms and accelerated coastal erosion is not just a threat to those heritage sites. It also poses risks to people's homes and businesses as well. Recognising that risk, SIPA back in September produced a new coastal flood warning scheme to help communities vulnerable to rising sea levels to prepare. Over 90 per cent of flood risk in Orkney originates from the sea. That is perhaps a niche aspect of a wider debate—a debate that we will return to in due course. I look forward to playing my part in strengthening what has been world leading legislation here in Scotland, making sure that we meet those challenges. For now, I thank Maurice Golden for providing me with an opportunity to shine a bit of a light on this niche aspect of the wider debate. I thank Maurice Golden for bringing this to the chamber. I agree with Liam McArthur that it is such a big issue that we could have had a debate about it in an afternoon. I will use my time to concentrate on one theme, which is the economic cost to individuals and societies if we ignore the messages of the IPCC report. The reason that I make this singular point is that I feel that if moral responsibility and the duty that many millions of us feel towards protecting our environment does not resonate, we have no choice but to point out the harsh, clear and proven economic cost to people, communities and Governments if we ignore or deny climate change. The cost in terms of public health will be staggering, the impact of global food supply and the resulting rising food prices will hit us all and the cost of damage due to extreme weather events that we can only guess at globally. Scotland is taking this very seriously, but others are not. Ironically, the nation in which it was withdrawn from its obligations to the Paris Agreement, which is a climate change-denying leader, has a quite staggering, quantifiable cash cost for the extreme weather events that it has sustained. Since 1980, the US has had 219 weather and climate disasters, where the cumulative costs for those events exceed $1.5 trillion. Right now, we are seeing the terrible tragic devastation in California. We do not believe that those fires are a symptom of climate change, some are of that view, but this summer, people in Yokmuk, in the Swedish part of the Arctic Circle, also experienced forest fires. There should not be forest fires in Arctic areas. If that is not an undeniable effect of climate change, I do not know what is. Last month, I was fortunate to attend the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik with my colleague Mark Ruskell. At a point where the ink was barely dry in the IPCC report, what struck me about many of the conversations that we had was that south of the Arctic Circle, the rest of the world will need to seriously wake up to what is happening there now. The negative impacts of the Arctic sea ice will have on those who live south of the North Pole. Melting sea ice means closer erosion, which has already been mentioned here and around the world. It means higher sea levels here and around the world. Of course, it has an impact on the regulation of the earth's temperature. It just asks the farmers in my area who are struggling to feed their livestock this winter because of this year's dry summer that impacted on the silage production. They had to use winter stocks of silage when they could not have grazing fields because they were too dry. That is hurting them directly in their pockets because bought-in feed is expensive. My area is also too keenly aware of what a warm, damp winter means. During my election campaign in 2016, I suspended my campaigning from a team to assist with the efforts to deal with the aftermath of the dreadful storm Frank and the horrible flooding that so many of my constituents evacuated in their homes and businesses. It is estimated that the cost to us in Arbedin City and Shire area for the flooding and damage by the storm was £700 million. That is quite a conservative estimate. The emotional and social cost is also difficult to quantify, but it is significant to ask anyone who is to evacuate their home by boat at four in the morning. I hope that the few examples that I have been able to give in my time have clearly made the point that, even if one's motivation is money, if we do not act on the recommendations of the IPCC report, every single one of us will bear a great personal financial cost. If you are the sort of person who cares not a job about what happens in other countries and there are some, know this. The impact will be on your doorstep, too. It will affect your health, your livelihood, your home, your family budget. The IPCC report is not a letter written to environmentalists. It is for each and every one of us that we should all read and understand it and get behind the efforts to stop their predictions from coming true and put tackling climate change at the top of all our agendas. I thank my colleague Maurice Golden for bringing this important subject to the chamber. As a member of the Eclair Committee, as well as my party spokesman in the natural environment, it is fair to say that I am becoming well versed in matters surrounding climate change. Like other members, I have said that the UN intergovernmental report on climate change released last month is a really important piece of work. It is indeed a further start warning not that we needed one, but that we as politicians have a duty to act urgently on behalf of constituents before it becomes too late. It is astonishing that if global warming was limited to rising by one and a half degrees, we would still lose between 70 to 90 per cent of coral reefs. Further more, if temperatures were to rise by two degrees, more than 99 per cent of our reefs would be lost forever. The Scottish Government has made some welcome progress on cutting our carbon fruit print, but as Maurice's motion outlines, this report should reaffirm the need to go further and quicker as a nation in a position to do so. The Scottish Government talks to talk when it comes to climate change, but it is the SNP Government that has U-turned on plans to reduce emissions from domestic heating. The target for low-carbon domestic heat was reduced from 80 per cent by 2032 in the draft climate change plan to 35 per cent in the final plan. Further more, our streets in Scotland still have dangerously high levels of toxic air pollution, which are breaking legal limits. The total number of official pollution zones where levels regularly exceed legal limits has remained static at 38 under this Government. That is despite the 31 December 2010 deadlines for standards for particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide to be met. More needs to be done to bring about transformational change in active travel, because at the rate of progress, it will take around 239 years to reach the Government's target for 10 per cent of journeys to be made by bike by 2020. Evidence by the tiny increase of 0.2 per cent in bike journeys from 2010 to 2016 has revealed in the latest transport stats. Bus passenger numbers in Scotland have fallen by 10 per cent over the last five years under this Government. Bus fleet sizes have fallen by 16 per cent, while fares have increased by five in real terms. 31 per cent of journeys to work were by public or active travel in 2016, which is the same as in 2006. Electric vehicles currently only account for less than 1 per cent of the 2.9 million cars on the roads in Scotland. The SNP Government's plan to phase out the purchase of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032, I acknowledge that it is ahead of the UK Government's target, but there is still a significant amount of progress to be made. Far more needs to be done and a clear road map drawn up to hit future critical targets. The Scottish Government's independent advisers on climate change, the Committee on Climate Change, were clear in their recent Scotland's progress report that Scotland's progress on reducing emissions from the electricity sector masks a lack of action in other areas, and there remains a need to improve if we are to hit emission targets through to 2032. On those benches, we recognise and welcome the 45 per cent emissions reduction since 1990, but that record of international leadership will not continue without renewed action. Agriculture is an industry that absolutely recognises its role in delivering better positive climate change, but that industry is calling out for much-improved knowledge transfer and support. As the motion states, we are a nation with a proven record of expertise and innovation. We need to properly harness that experience and innovation to deliver better outcomes through actions such as soil sampling for precision application of fertiliser to prevent excess applications, which saves farmers money and prevents environmentally damaging run-off. Financial incentives to support the purchase of more precise precision machinery would achieve similar aims. In building, a more ambitious goal for Scotland's energy efficiency programme could help all homes in Scotland to achieve at least an EPC band C by 2030, tackling fuel poverty, reducing spending on home heating energy and creating thousands of jobs. In May, the Scottish Conservatives won cross-party support to bring the targets for all homes to be an EPCC rating or above and bring it forward by 10 years. We have set out an ambitious target for that to be reached by 2030, whereas the target set out in SNP's energy-efficient Scotland route map was only by 2040. Right now, we have a fantastic opportunity as we hear evidence from across the world and across every sector as we in the Scottish Parliament scrutinise the climate change bill. I firmly believe that we need to do our bit. That is why we must heed the IPCC report and take the lead. I once again thank Maurice Golden for bringing this business to the chamber this evening, and let's hope that we act before it's too late. The Scottish Conservatives of the Party are out-greening the Greens and trumping the SNP with their achievable ambitions. That alone must be an incentive for the other parties to do more. Thank you. Well, Ross Greer, that's a call to arms. Mr Greer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, though I agree absolutely with a point made by Liam McArthur that something of this scale deserves a full afternoon's debate with a motion that is voted on. Last month's IPCC report made clear that we have about a decade left to manage the climate crisis, not to stop it but to manage it. Managing means limiting warming to one and a half degrees. We're currently heading for over three degrees of global warming, that's civilisation ending stuff, but let's consider what the best-case scenario is. If we're to manage to radically change course and successfully restrict warming to one and a half degrees, all we have to do to think of what the impact will be is to look around us now. Wildfires in California have raised entire communities to the ground, they've killed dozens of people that we know of. This isn't just some celebrities losing their mansions, 8,000 homes have been destroyed, the town of paradise is simply gone, hundreds of people are missing, tens of thousands more homes are in danger, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. Over 200,000 acres have already been burnt by just two of those wildfires, they combined to be about the size of East Lothian and Mid Lothian put together. This summer, we experienced a global heatwave. We had wildfires here in the UK, thankfully not as large or deadly as those in California. As Gillian Martin mentioned, there were wildfires within the Arctic Circle, but it's not just wildfires and heatwaves that are increasingly becoming mass casualty events across the planet. Flash floods, typhoons and other extreme weather events have caused havoc this year and they're only becoming more common. Global warming causes more extreme weather, it causes more deadly weather and this is happening right now. We have not yet hit and we are not on track to hit that manageable 1.5 degrees of warming and the planet is already being devastated. As the climate heats up, extreme weather will become more common. That's more wildfires, more droughts, more flooding, stronger and more frequent storms, and there will be sea level rise. Hundreds of millions of people in low-lying countries, particularly poorer countries, will be displaced. Can we handle the displacement that the climate crisis will cause? The so-called migration crisis in Mediterranean in 2015 was caused by Europe's inability to cope with what at its peak was the arrival of a million refugees. I've been to Lampedusa, I've spoken to these refugees, I've spoken to climate refugees on that island and I know the immense human suffering that this crisis is already causing. On our current trends, which are constantly being revised upward, over 300 million people will be climate refugees by 2050. Despite those deadly summer heat waves, Europe will still be one of the safest places to be. Does anyone for a second believe that a continent convulsed by a xenophobic and hostile response to a few million people will respond to a true refugee crisis in anything other than a catastrophically inhumane manner? How can we even limit global warming to this more manageable level? What we need is a global marshal plan, not to rebuild after a brutal conflict but to prevent a level of destruction and disruption, which we cannot really imagine. The estimated costs are anything up to £2.5 trillion a year in energy transition alone, but that wealth is out there right now. It's in the hands of those who caused this crisis. It's in the hands of the 90 or so companies who have caused over two thirds of greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of the industrial era. That's who we should be seizing this from to fund this emergency response. We need the wealth and the power in the hands of those who are actually determined to stop this crisis, because we know what we need to do. We need a sweeping expansion of renewable energy generation in every corner of the planet to replace the capacity that has to be lost from fossil fuels. Every form of clean energy generation everywhere that is valuable must be brought online and integrated into wider energy networks. A speed of industrial expansion only previously achieved by the superpowers of the Second World War. We need to revolutionise public transport across the world to rapidly shrink private car use, drastically reduce shorthall flights, manufacture products as close to source as possible and, in a way that maximises rather than minimises their lifespan to decrease the carbon footprint of global shipping and cargo flights. We need to rapidly expand electrification of public transport to make this work and we need to consume less and end the systems in our society that are underpinned by disposable items or programmed obsolescence, particularly in electronics. Those are things that cannot be achieved by asking nicely or by relying on individual choices to buy a reusable shopping bag. We cannot wait for solutions to become economically viable or for the market to provide. We need clear and concerted state action now. We need to tax those companies responsible for emissions and invest heavily in the solutions to decarbonise our economy. We need regulations to force businesses to end waste and we need to restrict the corrupt and corrosive political influence of billionaires and their fossil fuel-intensive industries. My generation's future has been stolen from us. My adult life is going to be defined by this crisis, but I intend and we intend to fight like hell to stop this. We only wish that those who have brought this motion to Parliament today are half as serious as we are about the scientific reality of the crisis that we face. Thank you, Mr Greer. I now call on Rosanna Cunningham to close to be at the Government Cabinet Secretary, please. I thank Maurice Golden for bringing forward the debate on the recent IPCC special report, which, of course, the Scottish Government has welcomed already, and I do so again today. The report sets out in stark terms the threats that we face from climate change in terms of food security and water supply, loss of biodiversity, damage to infrastructure and economic growth, as well as more extreme weather. A number of members have flagged up examples of where that may already be happening. I share Maurice Golden's assessment that the IPCC report represents an urgent call to global action. The report makes clear that rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes to global energy, land use, urban and industrial systems are needed if the Paris agreement aims are to be met. What utterly dismal interventions from some members listening to Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish think that Scotland was failing in its international obligations when, in fact, the exact opposite is the case. I am proud that Scotland is one of the first countries to have responded to the agreement with proposals for strengthened legally binding emissions reductions targets. We are well played to take a leading role in decarbonising the global economy, and it is right that we do so. The issue about achieving 1.5 or 2.0 reduction was addressed by the Committee for Climate Change and its advice to us on a high ambition. Scottish response to the Paris agreement advised that a 90 per cent target is in line with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. I appreciate that people do not want to hear that, but that is what the Committee for Climate Change said. Other countries must now step up and match Scotland's ambition and action. We are doing our fair share, but Scotland only accounts for around 0.1 per cent of the world's emissions, and that is a global issue that needs a global response. That is why the Scottish Government is committed to working with international partners and supporting measures to increase global effort to tackle climate change. In October, we contributed to the UNFCCC's Talanoa Dialogue, which is intended to support the implementation of national commitments to the Paris agreement. In September, we contributed to the EU's consultation on a long-term greenhouse emissions reduction strategy, sharing our experience of climate change and urging the EU to maintain its leadership on climate change, and we have written to the UK Government calling on them to join us in working towards net zero emissions. I hope that that is going to be possible. I do not want to be defensive about that. The point is that the cabinet secretary really thinks that where we are now is Scotland's fair share. She has gone to the CCC, but there has been so much advice. It is not binding to only listen to the CCC. There has been so much advice, which is why Scottish Labour is in the position that it is in. I am not speaking for other parties, but there are other parties that think similarly. That should be surely respected in trying to push us towards further action. We listened to evidence and information from everywhere, but I need to remind the chamber that the UK Committee for Climate Change is our statutory advisers. That is what the Parliament wanted us to take advice about, where the Parliament wanted us to take advice. If that has to be reopened, then fine, people need to reopen that and rethink what that means. I was just finishing on a point about writing to the UK Government. I did say earlier today to the chamber that the First Minister hopes to be able to attend this year's UN climate talks in Poland. That followed a personal invitation from Patricia Espinosa, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC. It provides further confirmation of the importance of Scotland's climate leadership internationally. We should all be proud of Scotland's progress to date in driving down emissions and world-leading commitments to continue to do so. However, the Scottish Government has been absolutely clear that we want to go even further and set a date for net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases in law as soon as that can be done both credibly and responsibly. The independent expert advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change plays a key role in that. That is why we have joined the UK and Welsh Governments in writing to the CCC to ask that it provides updated advice on national target levels in light of the IPCC report. I would argue that that is responsibly responding as a Government to what we see. That reflects the seriousness with which we are taking the report. We have asked the committee to provide its advice in March next year so that it can inform Parliament's deliberations on the bill. However, if it does not come in March, I think that it is more important that we get the bill right than we try to rush the bill through. If the CCC advises that even more ambitious Scottish targets are now credible in light of the IPCC report or in light of more being done at a UK level, we will act upon that advice. That is what we have been saying all along. Even if the CCC advises that a 90 per cent target remains a limit of feasibility for now, the bill contains mechanisms to ensure that the CCC reviews and updates that advice regularly. As soon as the evidence to support higher targets exists, the bill allows for those to be rapidly set in legislation. I did not do retaking intervention. I am sorry. I am sorry. Mark Ruskell. Thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. The UK CCC has already given some very clear advice about farming and transport. In my speech, I highlighted the kind of actions that are needed not just by yourself, cabinet secretary, but by your colleague Fergus Ewing and across the cabinet. What pressure are you going to put on the other part of this portfolio to make those changes? I cannot range across everybody else's portfolio. I can tell you, somewhat surprised to hear the comments about the NFUS. I had a very specific meeting directly with the NFUS and associated groups specifically about the bill. They can have been under no illusions as to how important the issue was to the Government. When talking about progress to targets, we focus on territorial emissions, those from sources located here in Scotland. That approach is in line with international reporting practice, including under the Paris agreement. Maurice Golden is right to highlight the need to be mindful of our consumption-based emissions, which are those associated with imported goods and services. I recognise that progress in reducing Scotland's carbon footprint has been slower than in reducing our territorial emissions, but that is why our role on the international stage is so important, because all countries need to reduce the emissions that are embedded in goods and services. The Committee on Climate Change has advised that setting targets for consumption-based emissions would be both disruptive and impractical, so we need to think about how that would work. There is a lot that we can do at home, which is why I fully support the ambition to integrate circular economy thinking into all our policy areas. I will not be drawn down the line of a discussion about deposit return. That is really for another debate. Tomorrow I will be opening a community resources network conference, which that organisation will get the point. I think that there is a lot that we can learn from it. In conclusion, I welcome the debate and bring the IPCC report further to the attention of Parliament. Climate change is a defining challenge of our time, and the IPCC report represents a key stage in the global response to this. It says that the world needs to be carbon neutral by 2050. Our bill means that Scotland will be exactly that. What is more, our bill enables this Parliament to keep our target levels under constant review, so Scotland can always remain at the forefront of ambition, which is where we are at present.