 We are saying goodbye to everyone. Welcome everyone to the 11th meeting of the net zero energy and transport committee. Before we begin, a reminder that social distancing measures are in place at Hollywood, please observe these as you enter and leave the committee room. We have apologises from Natalie Dawn. We also have apologies from Collette Stevenson who has been substituting for Natalie and she sends her apologies to the committee. At item 1 we have consideration i'r agenda item 3, ond item 3 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear this morning in relation to COP26 outcomes. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much, we are agreed. Our first item of business today is an evidence session on the outcomes of COP26 and early views from experts on its implications for the climate change policies that we have in Scotland. This week we have two panels and for the first panel I am delighted to welcome Professor Dave Roy, Executive Director, Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation and Mike Robinson, Chief Executive, Royal Scottish Geographical Society. Good morning to both of you, we are delighted that you could join us this morning to provide your early insights into the outcomes of COP26. Professor Roy, thank you for your recent submission, that was a very useful overview of your initial thoughts on COP26. I also believe that you would like to make a short opening statement this morning before we move on to questions, so I will hand over to you. Thanks a lot, convener. Thank you to the committee for having me along. I know that you heard from Malini and Jim last week, so I'm going to keep this fairly quick. I was also looking at what Alistair has produced and the SPICE team, which is really good in terms of a summary of COP26. One of the things that I was just going to highlight that I hopefully came through in what I submitted was some of the implications for Scotland, which I guess we'll talk about in more depth. One of the main things was just the amount of attention on Scotland at COP26 because of our ambitious targets, because of us essentially being further down the line than a lot of nations in terms of trying to do this. A lot of attention in terms of how we're getting on, how we're dealing with some of the barriers, some of the opportunities and hopefully sharing mistakes that may have been made along the way as well. That was really good to see and obviously the COP itself, Glasgow and Scotland, did a great job at hosting it. Some of the things that came through, there was a lot of attention around our targets as well as all of the targets that nations have submitted to, so the nationally determined contributions through to 2030, obviously, but also the long term ones. One of the key issues that I guess all keep coming back for rich countries like ours is whether those targets are actually aligned with the Paris climate goals. As has been talked about at length over the years, they are in terms of if you just take into account what our emissions are now, but actually the fair share estimation in terms of our historical emissions and our capacity to act means actually we need to go much further in other ways, so that was something that came through quite a few events at COP. The other thing that came through really strongly, and this is why it's so good that you've got this inquiry coming up for your committee, was around local action, so it was supposed to be all about an implementation COP and this year of action, decade of action for the Paris agreement, so local government, cities, communities, lots of discussion about how this actually works on the ground, so I think you'll spot on in terms of your focus on that, your upcoming inquiry. The other thing I did mention in my submission was around the just transition, so that is something that I think a lot of the world see again Scotland as a testbed for in terms of how that can be achieved and I think it's going to become a bigger and bigger issue as we go through this year towards COP 27, so the example of South Africa in there, kind of moving away from coal, but how that's actually supported and the number of jobs in that industry a bit like a wheel and gas here in Scotland, that's going to be so crucial in terms of those nationally determined contributions actually being realised, so them being sustainable domestically rather than politically becoming infeasible because the just transition is not achieved, so my summary very, very kind of hopefully succinctly was around whether COP 26 was a success and I'm always a massive overoptimist, so I went into COP thinking, okay, this is probably the most science-based COP there's ever been in terms of the six assessment report working group one report being already out and hopefully action taken on that and so alignment with 1.5 in terms of the commitments was what I guess my dreams were made of, I kind of knew that that was not going to be the case I guess all of us did, there was a slight closing there but nowhere near enough, there's lots of good things and Jim and Malini covered a lot of those last week with you but in terms of 1.5 which is a crucial target for the world, COP 26 failed to deliver alignment with that so we still got that 1.5 alive in terms of the physics of climate change but in terms of the reality of delivering on it time is so tight and I guess this year ahead running up to the Egypt COP is going to be the make or break in terms of that target, thank you. Thank you very much Professor Ray for those remarks. Mr Robinson, did you wish to make a brief opening statement before we move to questions? Yeah, that might be helpful just to give some broad reflections if that's okay, convener. Again, like Dave, I think no surprise COP, as it stood, was a little bit of a disappointment on some levels, moving 2.4 degrees is not the outcome that we were looking for, it's a lot better than 3.7 that we had out of Paris but as we all know we still have some distance to go but I think it's also important that it's not portrayed as some sort of object failure either because it isn't, it's just that would be to misunderstand the United Nations process I think and I think really what came out of it for me is a reminder, if I needed one, that the UN process is slow, cumbersome and torturously complex and of course it can only usually move at the speed of the slowest contributor and it does make you wonder if there are other mechanisms to help move some of this agenda forward. Are there actually some items that can be taken off the table and dealt with separately? A good example from our perspective would be around cement, which is a critical issue, 7 per cent global emissions could be dealt with much more easily out with that process probably in a sort of Montreal protocol style agreement. In terms of Scotland, Scotland performed actually quite well that COP. It was recognised for its ambition around legislation and certainly a lot of the actions that we were involved in, a lot of the work that we were involved in, was around lifting the profile of some of what's going on in Scotland, not to pretend that we have done enough but we are still on ahead of a journey that a lot of people are on and it's important that we share that learning. I think that there was a real appetite from delegates that I came across in Blue Zone, Green Zone and in the NGO communities to find out more about what's actually been going on here. I think that that lends itself both to some potential for increased moral leadership but also opportunity to certainly in terms of expertise and academic and business opportunity. I'd like to think there are opportunities too in terms of the alliances. I did one presentation in the Nordic zone, Nordic Pavilion, and there are clearly countries that are more progressive around this agenda. I think that that's a really exciting potential for Scotland to develop those relationships with the more progressive nations but, at the same time, I think that we've got to look at those that are dragging their heels and some of those are countries that we have very close affinity with, the USA, Canada and particularly Australia. I think that we've actually got to see that as an opportunity to help them properly to get on board with this journey and do more and take this more seriously and maybe take some of the fear out of it for them as well. So, I'd like to think that it isn't over yet when you haven't handed over to Chammell Shake. We've sort of got the chair for the next year. The UK has the chair for the next 12 months. I think that we've still got some work to do. Thank you very much, Mr Robinson. Thank you both for those introductory remarks. I wonder if it would be helpful for the committee if you could elaborate further on those initial observations in terms of the major outcomes which you did view as a success and areas in which you think that more action is required. Professor Ray, you mentioned that there was no giant leap forward to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, but you also pointed out to major steps forward in a basket of key climate issues such as transparency, carbon markets and coal. I guess a related question is, are we now moving on to a sort of annual COP process where every year there is going to be a significant conference to update targets, as opposed to previous times where the cycle seemed to be a three to five-year cycle? I'll start with Professor Ray and then bring in Mike Robinson. That's a really good question, convener. I mean, I think, as you saw from the cover text in terms of the pact, there is a request that nations provide updated commitments in 2022, so for COP 27. That is something that could be a one-off. It recognises the fact that the ratchet mechanism of which COP 26 was the first ratchet of the Paris agreement. The ratchets are too far apart, so they're five years apart, so the next one would have been, I guess, four years down the line, because we were a year late in terms of COP 26, but in terms of where we are with the missions and alignment with the Paris climate goals, it recognises that. Whether that will become a regular thing in terms of every year there will be that request in the text or new NDCs to come forward. We'll see, because I think there's a big question about, I think there are about 40 nations that didn't even submit for this COP, for COP 26, an updated national interming contribution. Many will say that it's a lot of effort, it's a lot of work to do, particularly if you're a small state, and so expecting them to do that again next year and go beyond what they've already done, that's a bit of a challenge. It was interesting what John Kerry said about the US NDC, and this is someone who was really pushing for a lot of action internationally at COP. He kind of equivocated a bit in terms of whether you would see an updated NDC from the US, because it depends on their domestic circumstances. It's great to have it in there, in that cover text, and we definitely do need to see that increased ambition, because we're a long way off, like Mike was saying. Let's see how many nations follow through with that and whether it becomes an annual event. From a scientific point of view, given where we are and having to close that gap rapidly, we can't wait five years to do that. Having an annual update to NDCs with increased ambition is what we need, but we need the support for all nations to be able to do that, and obviously not all of them have that capacity. Thank you very much. Mike Robinson, same question to you. Thank you convener. One of the key things with the UN is that it clearly has a problem with speed of progress. It's taken 26 years to get to where we are now and finally mentioned fossil fuels as a problem. We need to find a way to urgently increase the speed of decision making. I think that that's true domestically as much as it is internationally. The annualisation of commitments is, in theory, a good idea, but as Dave said, if they don't have the domestic support, they're not going to bring forward new commitments and it's a danger of leaving more and more people behind. I think what it does is it highlights the frailties of the UN process and it starts to beg a question of where else and how can you move that forward in different ways. Things like Scotland's co-chair of the under-two coalition is a good example of where there is an opportunity to create, as I say, alliances with the progressive nations that are moving forward and start working more collaboratively across that group. It's not just nations, it's also places like California, which is clearly ahead of the curve. There are real opportunities there, and I think that it's really important that they start to show more leadership and I think that Scotland's got a role there. Even domestically, there is an issue around the speed of decision making. It's a difficult thing to speed up. I generally sense that if we're going to solve this crisis, we need to slow down politics and speed up decision making, and both of those things are quite challenging. Thank you very much. One more question from me, then I'll bring in Mark Ruskell. In the areas where real progress was made in COP26 and, for example, I think carbon markets have been highlighted, increasing transparency and reporting requirements, how might those outcomes impact policy in Scotland and the rest of the UK, and what might be the practical implications for Governments and businesses arising from the outcomes in those areas? Professor Real, I'll start with you again. For me, a real positive was the Paris rule book, in terms of a lot of that being agreed in a way that closes some of the loopholes. A crucial one, in terms of markets, was avoiding double counting, certainly between trades and emissions, between nations. There's going to be a real role, probably for you, in terms of Parliament, as well as Governments, in terms of those carbon markets, particularly the voluntary carbon markets, and how they operate in the context of what's being agreed under article 6, in that case, in terms of what credits are authorised. If you have authorised credits as a nation, then the idea is that if you sell those, then you have to take them off your balance, so there isn't double counting. Where there's still a grey area, and probably where regulation is going to have to play a role, is in that voluntary carbon market where you've got, essentially, projects that a company might be funding and claiming those emission reductions, and there's no corresponding reduction in terms of where those reductions happen in terms of the national accounting. That is going to be something where, if you were really wanting to play the text of the Paris agreement and what came out of Glasgow as well as a company, you could go down a green washing line in terms of what you're actually doing. You're counting emission reductions, which are already part of a nation's efforts in terms of cutting their emissions. That, at least, was made really overt in the discussions in Glasgow, and it's something where it will come down to all of the states to look at how their voluntary carbon markets are working, whether it needs intervention or whether the market will look after itself in terms of that distinction. We've got two tiers now of credits based on the outcome, which is that if we've got those authorised credits, then we know that they are going to be not double counted. They're going to be real reductions, which aren't copied somewhere else, and the atmosphere will see just that reduction. However, we've got this other tier, which is outside of those authorised credits, where some attention probably needs to be put on it in terms of, for Scotland, for the Government and the Parliament, potentially also the courts, but this is an issue for all nations, is to make sure that double counting is avoided. Yeah, it's a fascinating idea. Mike Robinson, same question to you please. Thanks, convener. Again, I can eat the issue of double counting is critical, where a great example at home is the whole issue around tree planting and agriculture. If companies start buying up land to put trees in them, you can't use it to offset land management issues, and I think it is going to become an increasing issue. I think there is a concern there around scrutiny and how we monitor all of that. The private sector is likely to respond to some of the findings of more quickly, potentially, than some other Governments, because what they are looking for is trends and certainty. They are still waking up to some of those changes. I still don't think that the knowledge and understanding within the business community is as high as it should be considering the importance of the issue. However, as that starts to kick in, both in terms of the certainty of direction—the move away from call, which seems obvious and predictable but is still surprising some in the business community—we are starting to see some of the financial ratchets moving ahead. The other thing that I felt within COP, particularly some of the fringe activities, was around some of the legal changes that are likely to be coming forward, too. One of the panels that I spoke on was about stop-ecoside, which is a really significant international campaign to give legal rights to the environment, which would start to, again, impact people's bottom line and make them think a bit harder about how seriously they take this issue. For me, one of the things that pops out of all of that is the long-term certainty. People know that that is the direction of travel and have confidence that they are going in the right direction. The other is around scrutiny, but more than scrutiny, it is also sense-checking. One of the concerns, I think, is just to ensure that the climate is being considered in all of those decision-making. I still think that there is room for more knowledge for that on every board in Scotland, and I think that that is still something that we need to look at. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you, convener. I was just reflecting on what you were saying there, Mike, on the opportunity to take particular sectors and to develop essentially a protocol. I think that you mentioned that in relation to cement. I was interested perhaps in you just exploring that a little bit more with the committee, because I guess my sense of co-op is that the process is not ideal. I think that what happened on Saturday in particular with the watering down of text and some of the geopolitics around that was deeply worrying. One of my children watched that and watched the response from other countries around that table like Switzerland and others and just found it incredible. It seems that there is more of a diplomatic effort that is needed in the run-up to these co-ops. I am interested in how you see particular sector protocols or initiatives running in the run-up to co-op. Align to that as well, some reflections on the various high-ambition alliances that are emerging. There seem to be more of a informal multilateralism at this co-op. The Costa Ricans were very prominent and have been very prominent in the development of those alliances around nature and high-ambition and beyond-all and gas alliance. I am interested in the architecture of all of that from the two of you and what can happen along the side of co-op that can then feed into much more ambition in future co-ops. I do not know who it may be, Mike First and then Professor Ray. I guess that there are lots of different responses to that, first of all. There are a number of issues that we know need to be resolved. I am arguably one of the most successful climate agreements up until now has been the Montreal protocol, which was not intended to be that, of course. It was the removal of CFCS from the atmosphere to prevent the depletion of the ozone layer, but it was achieved relatively quickly. It actually made a difference. It did not make a whole difference, but it was much easier to deliver, because it was a discrete piece of work with a very immediate need. There is a sense that there are certain aspects of that that can be taken out and dealt with separately and not sitting on the table conflated by all of the other issues that are there. Of course, there were anxieties and there was disappointment about the way similar languages watered down. It is very easy to point fingers at that, and it is frustrating to see that. Equally, there are a number of commitments that people are not actually delivering against, and it is giving people political space to do those sorts of things. It is really important that there is leadership in this arena. I believe that there is huge opportunity in leadership. There is a need to start to look at all the different mechanisms for building relationships with the progressive countries. Even organisations like mine might not be obvious, because we are a tiny charity based in Perth, but we are part of the international geographical community. Our connections on soft diplomacy are enormous. We can reach really quite interesting people across the world. We need to start using all of those sorts of mechanisms to help to share the examples and the expertise that we have, because everybody is on this journey. Australia is right at the back of the queue. We are being costaraker towards the front, but we have all got a long way to go. We have to start to build those soft alliances. I genuinely believe that there is real opportunity in that. The likes of something like cement is a really obvious one. It is just a discrete area of work. Part of the reason that is problematic is that 7 per cent of the mission is a very heat-intensive process. Most standards, apart from in Australia, ironically, the standard for the strength of cement is how much Portland it has in it. There are alternatives to Portland, so let us just take those sorts of issues off the table and deal with them separately and find a different mechanism to do that. I think that the progressive alliances are probably the first port of call to move that forward. Dave, do you want to come in? Yes, thanks Mark. It is a really good question. I think that if I had to list my successes from COP26, they would include things that were not in any of the formal text in terms of the pact or anything else. They would be those alliances around. The deforestation one in week one was because it was so broad and deep in terms of additional finance and recognising that a lot of what needs to happen in terms of reducing or stopping deforestation is actually working with the communities that are already protecting those forests. We have seen commitments like this before around deforestation, but that one spoke volumes in terms of what a huge source of emissions it is and actually how it is as ever working on the ground locally if you want to address that. Methane was another one. Allright, China was one of the major emitters in Russia as well. It did not sign up to it, but actually there is this dialogue between US and China around methane, but that was led by the US and that spoke volumes to me because it is a powerful greenhouse gas. It causes huge damage in terms of air quality as well, so huge co-benefits in terms of reducing it and gives you a little bit of a lever there in terms of rapid reductions in the rate of warming because it is short lived. I have seen different outcomes. It depends how you take the spin, so I have seen some saying that that has meant that an extra point two has been shaped off the warming this century, point two degrees Celsius. More probably robust analysis suggests point one, but that is a significant equivalent to a big emitter coming through with a substantially increased commitment in terms of their NDC. Those mechanisms like Mike was saying are really important. They are important part of COP. They are wrapped up into it, but they allow those coalitions to come together and do stuff that is, in theory, faster and certainly more robust in terms of who is actually going to do what rather than just getting wrapped up in how can we get out of this or go for the lowest common denominator. To be honest, some of them were disappointing and that diplomacy in the run-up to COP is a really good point mark. The UK Government had its target areas. Coal was one of those. Coal was one of those. On cars, that was fairly underwhelming in terms of that commitment that was made by the coalition that was brought together. However, there were some notable successes in terms of deforestation and methane, as Mike says. Things like cement might be another example that we will see coming through. I guess it speaks to the frustration of the nation-states and what they want to see happen through the UN process. Those coalitions give a way to take action that does not need to go through all the way to Alok Sharma's gavel at the end. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mark. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Monica Lennon. Thank you, convener. Just a very brief question. Mike Robinson, during that discussion, you said that the private sector will respond more quickly to the situation. So what, in your view, ought Governments to be doing to either get out of the way of the private sector doing that innovation and or in order to promote that, for example, providing a stable long-term investment environment? What do you think? I think that the private sector wants consistency and clarity of direction more than anything else, and it needs to know that that is in place for a period of time. How does that translate? Some of the previous tariffs that we have had around energy—the feeding tariffs for renewable heat and centres and things—haven't really stayed there long enough to have the full impact that they could have, some of the grants and discounts to different interventions as well. I do believe that having a more long-term view to that, a consistency and a commitment over a minimum period—probably looking at 15 to 20 years realistically—gives certainty that that allows them to reposition their organisation more behind it. I do think—it's interesting, if I may have said that before—that it was only three years ago that I had a meeting with international financiers saying that they were surprised that coal had become uninvestable. The signals that COP gave around coal and methane and other things are important because they will trigger sensitivities in the market and in terms of longer-term investment by business. I think that business will react to that very quickly. As long as they are clear what their solutions are, one of the reasons why we haven't seen more of a shift is the two or three reasons, but one of them is simply that they are not always clear which bits to then move into and which bits to back. There is a lack of certainty and clarity sometimes around the solutions that I think holds them back. The other thing that holds them back is that they perceive it as it is costing them, and it never costs them to destroy the environment. We absolutely have to change that somehow, either through financial mechanisms or legal mechanisms. I think that's why I was quite excited by some of the growing momentum around some of the legalities of that. I still think that that's got a very important purpose there, too. Hopefully, that's the sort of answer to the question. Monica Lennon, to be followed by Fiona Hyslop. A brief question at this point. I was pleased to hear Mike Robinson mention the ecocide events that were happening on the side of COP, if you like. I also had the chance to attend some of those. I was thinking about what Mike and Professor Ray have said today about the opportunity for Scotland to lead the way and to build progressive alliances. What role could Scotland play in terms of that journey towards ecocide law? I declare an interest to someone who is looking at a member's bill right now, but is that a space where Scotland could play a role in terms of the climate and the nature of emergency? Mike, I'm interested to hear your thoughts first. Yes, 100 per cent. I think that the message of COP for me is that sometimes you can get lost in what you're doing and you can't see the bigger picture. One of the things that came home to me very strongly in COP is that what's going on in Scotland is quite well understood internationally. It is important. We're not the only ones. There are other countries doing really good things, too. The Belgians have been looking very seriously at adopting an ecocide law as well. Part of the point about that isn't, yes, have we got a role? 100 per cent we have, and I would absolutely love to see the Parliament adopt ecocide into legislation in some forum. What's interesting in that as well, and it's really important, is that it also indicates the momentum in all of this discussion and in all of this behaviour. As the issue becomes more urgent, there are not only commitments ratcheting up in general, most commitments, but we're starting to see the teeth kicking in as well. There are going to start to be financial mechanisms and financial penalties, and there are going to start to be legal mechanisms and legal penalties. What I find encouraging about COP on many levels is the momentum around many of those things feels like it's almost reaching a tipping point. I know from speaking to the ecocide team that the international momentum around that is actually very strong. They're looking for adoption at different levels of government in order to help to drive the momentum in the international stage, but having a law of ecocide sitting alongside genocide and war crimes really would absolutely give certainty that this is not an acceptable way to behave. And I think long overdue. Thank you, mate. Professor Ridgid, you want to add to that? Yeah, only in that we're going to remain under a lot of scrutiny as a nation and link to the ecocide kind of issue is around what we're doing on our whole land use and agriculture policy, as Mike and I have talked about a lot, and I know all of you have as well, in terms of where we are transitioning out of common agricultural policy. We know our natural capital in Scotland is huge, but we are, like other nations, facing a lot of competing interests in terms of how that's protected and best benefits, livelihoods, the transition to net zero, how is it resilient? And again, we're having to do this stuff ahead of some other nations, particularly developing nations, but a lot of developed world partners as well. They will do this, but they'll look at how Scotland is doing it. Can we realise a just transition for rural communities? Can we realise our carbon targets as well as protecting and enhancing biodiversity? It's always for me a source of great pride that nations do look at Scotland and we've got some really good practice to look to, but it's also a great source of fear that we make big mistakes on this or we go too slowly. Through that, it means other nations don't take action or they're scared away. They look at peatland restoration, for instance, and go, oh, Scotland is trying to do that, but look, the rate's too slow and they're just mired in the mire, as it were. Actually, we've got quite a lot of responsibility, I think, of Scotland, not just from historical emissions and the enlightenment, but actually where we are in terms of our progress on climate change, the climate change plan and our targets to show the world in all its glory any of our successes, but also our failures and mistakes and explain how they have happened so that other nations, whether big or small, can make the same kind of transition, hopefully in a faster way than most are committed to at the moment. Can I just pick up on something that Professor Ray said there, because I think that point about fear, particularly for politicians, that there are some tough and, I suppose, brave decisions to be made. I think that earlier on you said that this COP has been the most science-based COP I just wonder what the science will take every time we get to COP 27, but do you think that for leaders, including our own First Minister, they have been on a journey during this COP, because for the First Minister to say last week in this Parliament that something like Campbell shouldn't go ahead, that appears to be a decision that's reflecting the science, but it's probably a difficult thing to say. Do you think that that movement in position does that send out a message to other leaders or other parties that we have to get with the science, and that means that there is that space for people to change their mind on long-standing possessions? I hope so. Jim's report, the mitigation report for the success report, will be out before the next COP, so I think that's due early part of next year, as well as the impacts and adaptation report. The science basis in terms of underpinning climate action, that's not just mitigation but adaptation as well, will be loud and clear and hopefully there should be time to incorporate some of the outcomes from COP into those analyses, so that should be really strong. It's talked about a lot in terms of how courageous heads of state have to be, parliaments have to be, all of you have to be, Governments have to be, and it is a time to be so courageous because the time is so short and because the changes have to be so big, and it really is that monumental shift where we know in the past this has gone horribly wrong when we've made these big changes, the deindustrialisation in the UK and in Scotland, the scarring that we still bear and other nations bear those scars and others have seen what's happened and kind of go, we don't want those scars, so it is being really very brave about making those changes in the context of the pandemic and in the context of electoral cycles, but this is also in the context of a climate emergency and so being timid just won't cut it in terms of where we need to get to. It's really interesting, we had one of the events that COP was meeting with a congressional delegation from the US, the Climate Crisis Committee, in fact that's a committee, your committee definitely should talk to, and they were talking about what they had gathered from what we're doing in Scotland and the UK and they were saying it's such a breath of fresh air to see that politics isn't getting in the way and some of you might have disagree with that, but from their perspective they see it as such a partisan issue, climate change, and I think one of the, again going back to why we should be proud in Scotland is actually if we look at the Climate Change Act, if we look at the progress that's been made through successive parliaments on climate change, we have managed to take that courageous view because largely politics have been sidelined ahead of the fact that we need to deal with a climate emergency and hopefully by continuing on that line we can show other nations actually that you can do this and you can do it in a cross-party way rather than just winning political points. Thank you very much. It was directed to Dave, but I don't think Mike wants to add anything and I'll move on, convener. If I may. Yes, please. I think absolutely leadership is vital. I do joke sometimes that a courageous politician is assumed to be an ex-politician. One of the failings of COP in a way is that a lot of the politicians there didn't have the majority at home, didn't have the permission at home to do some of that stuff and therefore were the best one in the world, they may respond to international pressure a bit like Obama did in Paris where he signed it unilaterally effectively but couldn't get it through the senate and so it was very easy to reverse. I think the fact that it should be beyond politics, of course it should and hopefully with the scientific basis to it that allows it to be seen to be more objective in that sense but that isn't always the case and I think one of the things that's really important in this is that we do need to spend time and energy making sure that people are up to speak with this issue and the thing I have discovered more and more is that actually considering the enormity of this subject is surprising how little lot of people do actually understand around it so it's really important I think that we I mean you will know Dave and I have worked together to produce a qualification climate solutions understanding purposefully because we recognise that until that understanding and minimum level understanding is more universal it is going to be difficult to seek permission around some of the key crunchier issues for example you know whether when you use your car and how much you use your car and when you use other vehicles and other transport mechanisms and when you don't travel all that sort of thing it needs to have a sort of understanding it needs an underpinning and if we don't have that there is a real danger I think that it will get increasingly difficult to bring forward some of this these sorts of legislation and the other observation I wanted to make around COP action which I think is worth making it's just an observation but participating in marches and things I thought it was really interesting there first of all I mean there's a lot of people in the marches with an awful lot of different views which was quite entertaining I mean it was a very well turned out beautifully dressed pro nuclear lobby walking in the middle of it which I thought was quite funny a hundred yards in front of an anti nuclear group but but the fundamental point about it really was only that if you listen to what people were asking for and what they were speaking about I just think there's a real danger that we have a massive rift an intergenerational rift here if we're not careful that I think we really need to spend time patching up and I think all the generations have to be clear and make ever show evidence that they're taking this seriously because I think we just really are in danger of sort of disappointing a whole generation and they're really angry I mean listen to the comments and the chance that they're speaking you know they're shouting as they walk around Glasgow they're not looking for small compromises and tweaks they're looking for radical interventions but we've got to get the majority behind supportive of that or permissive of that if that's actually going to work so even though I wish we could just shout more at you guys and you could change it all for us I suspect we need to do more work in terms of bringing the general population with us a bit more and therefore this issue about universal education is really really critical thank you both very much that was very helpful thank you Monica Fiona his lot please um please broadcast yeah thanks thanks thank you very much for that moving I think from shouting back to diplomacy and you covered some of my points I was interested in your answer to to mark ruskell and I'm interested particularly in the geopolitics of this and particularly the challenges ahead in advance of cop 27 and what you see needs to happen and professor rain in your private paper you announced and and declare a bit the importance of the just transition and what scotland can contribute but you also highlighted the importance of the us south africa coal agreement and that didn't really get as much coverage domestically I think in the UK as it might have done so I'd be interested if you wanted to unpack that a bit but also if both of you want to be able to reflect on the role of India the role of China Russia in what's happened in cop 26 but more importantly what that might mean going forward and from Mike in particular if you can maybe reflect also on that point about you know the UN is the essence of multilateralism what you're expressing is a whole load of parallel multilateralist approaches from business from cities from the under two alliance et cetera so if you can maybe think about the geopolitics in that sense but maybe starting with you David that's okay thanks yeah so the I mean I think that South African funding which was over eight billion dollars included the UK actually but us was is the main contributor and it didn't get much coverage but it was it was really important because it kind of signified what needs to happen in terms of that flow of finance from the north of the global south to allow that transition to away from coal in that case but away from fossil fuels away from high carbon and it was I guess part of I think what we'll see a lot more of so Nigeria today actually you know so they've got big commitments as well to to decarbonise and annual budgets like we have in Scotland in terms of carbon but all of these nations it's linked to what Mike was saying they're in the context of it being highly politically sensitive if people find that it's affecting their lives negatively and prices go up et cetera and huge numbers of livelihoods dependent on those industries is certainly the count I think 300 000 jobs dependent on the coal industry in South Africa for instance so it's kind of recognition from the US and others that you cannot just expect those nations to switch off coal without support to do that in terms of achieving that just transition now for us in Scotland obviously we've got we've got parallels 100 000 people roughly dependent on the oil and gas sector we probably cannot expect the US to give us eight billion dollars to help with our just transition because we are a rich nation but we do need to actually make sure that domestically that is properly funded the investment in terms of job creation the stuff that obviously gyms commission is really focused on but also through things like the CSAFs of the skills action plan all of those mechanisms are going to be crucial in terms of doing that here it comes back actually to us being an exemplar you know we are linked very much to the just transition in terms of the phrase but also in terms of the reality how it's done how the principles are applied on the other questions for you Anna so for India and China so that change to phase down rather than phase out it's an interesting one in terms of whether you see that really is just flexing those political muscles you know who's got who really holds the power now internationally and there's probably was an element of that but it also speaks to the reality of their domestic situation in India and the reliance on coal but it wasn't just that you know it was obviously I think it was g 77 nations supported it so India and China so I kind of I'm very much a glass half full person so having coal and fossil fuels in that cover text in terms of phasing down was still a breakthrough within that context of UNF triple C and getting anything into the text like that you know I see that as you know progress but obviously as mark was talking about the way it was presented and we also Alex Sharma's face as he took that on board it wasn't the progress you would want in terms of that full commitment to phase out coal which is where we need to get to and fossil fuels but it was progress and cop 27 I think that's a really good point that gives us a whole a very different context to Glasgow because this will be in Egypt and all right that's new count that as a kind of developed economy in many ways but it's representing the continent of Africa this was always going to be an African cop for the very good reason that that continent is a key area in terms of huge population young population if we do not manage what they're trying to do in South Africa for instance in terms of moving away from fossil fuel or leapfrogging then we will have no chance of meeting the Paris climate goals but also it is a crucible for climate change impacts already so loss and damage we haven't talked much about that but that's going to be a key issue for cop 27 is the dialogue in the run up to that whatever that form that takes has to lead to a mechanism which allows financial flows like Scotland has committed to but the first nation I think to actually put money up a drop in the ocean in terms of what loss and damage actually demands but it's going to be a key part of our fair share of meeting our climate change commitments and that loss and damage agenda I think for cop 27 will dominate the discussions actually and within that context the big powers like India and China and the transition away from fossil fuels so that just transition element of it that will be really allowed to is my expectation and Mike do you want to comment on that? Yeah sure I guess one of the problems with what India did to watering down the text on the last day was partly exacerbated by a lack of consistency by the west and particularly in terms of putting funding on the table there's 100 billion of promises been there for for a decade and hasn't materialised yet and it left wiggle room for people to move out of the way so I think one of the key lessons for me in that is the need for consistency in what we in the decisions that we're making and throughout all of our decision making processes and I don't think I don't think we always get that right I don't think we're as good at joined up thinking as we could be and I don't think it happens very often on the international stage in the way that it should but for example mean that you know camber was a good example it's anything like that is an obvious Achilles heel when you're standing up trying to give some moral authority to other people internationally I do believe that there are significant alliances and possibilities here the loss and damage that Dave was mentioning was really interesting I had a we sponsored the innovative second polar council to send representatives to Glasgow and there's a huge conversation to be had just within Canada which is reluctant to move along the loss and damage line but of course they've got citizens that are directly impacted and and merit that support in themselves so I actually think it changes the dynamic of the ability of that community to talk within Canada and it will for other communities too it gives them more leverage and more more authority to actually be at the table and I think that's really really critical and why even small gestures make a big big difference so for me it is a lot of this comes down to leadership and leadership requires both it does require boldness but we need to make sure that people support that otherwise it's short-term boldness which doesn't achieve anything but it does require that sort of long-term consistency throughout all of the things that we do and I think an obvious example again you know we need to somebody much cleverer than me once said that we judge a government by its budgets not by its rhetoric and again I still think there's an awful lot of space there where we could show more commitment around some of this stuff to prove that we are serious about it and in doing so for me the issue is this is momentum this is inevitable momentum globally so you need to get on board and if you're not on board actually there's a role for Scotland because we are ahead of others we still have a way to go but actually why shouldn't we use that influence to help countries like the US, Canada, Australia even New Zealand to actually accelerate what they're doing and take some of the fear out of it for them and I think that would be utterly invaluable I completely agree with that role that Scotland can have in terms of internationally and I've certainly my previous role I've seen it directly and that impact so we should never underestimate the influence that Scotland can have and we were the first to have the first climate justice fund however small it was and the first in the loss and damage however small it is and I want to ask a very probably potentially quite boring question but it's about the Paris rulebook obviously that was a success and it was completed but who is going to police this who's going to make sure that this happens in terms of the all the different targets and indeed the transparency that is now implicit is the UN mechanism strong enough to do that and will it be ready enough to do what it needs to do in advance of COP 27 maybe David first then might yeah it's a really good question I suppose one of the this comes back a little bit to the question about updating commitments for next year for 2022 in terms of capacity so one of the the good things that was made clear is not every nation has the same capacity to actually report its emissions to measure them to even have the kind of the technical ability actually to put information into the spreadsheets in a consistent way so actually the UN will provide that support so there is an overt mechanism for all nations to draw on that support to draw training so that capacity building element within Paris is is crucial because of the 197 parties they all have different levels of capacity so that was really encouraging the other thing linked to that in terms of the rule book that I found again really encouraging was around the market based solutions so one of the things which is committed to within article six and the kind of I suppose I get support around that is for projects the right for communities affected so indigenous peoples to be able to to go to an independent body to to complain basically so be able to take grievances to an independent body and say look you know they've come along and they've thrown us out of our forest and now they're claiming it for carbon benefits and actually you know not have to take that to a government body kind of domestically but actually an independent body so I think that was a really crucial element as well just in terms of that that capacity and those mechanisms that will make the Paris agreement work and make those nationally determined contributions work in an equitable way it's not perfect but it's it's definitely progress again and Mike yeah I think I mean obviously so much of it is voluntary through the United Nations and therefore I think that's why it's so important that some of this translates to legislative change and financial penalties and incentives I think it's not just penalties I think that's absolutely critical in order to embed this and I think that can be done it's only going to be done through alliances it's only going to be done through initially progressive nations forming those alliances and we need some consistent rules in place to ensure that we can actually deliver against this and it isn't just the sort of hold your hands up apologize every year when you come to cock because you didn't bother doing what you said you would do the previous year so that's why I think frameworks like eco science and nationalised legislation around that is really important and you know there's also an issue around scrutiny here as well so it's not just around you know joined up thinking and making sure climate is actually in our decision making and making sure that the financial mechanisms are actually supporting the right thing and not encouraging the wrong thing but there is also that need for scrutiny and sense checking of what's coming forward and the closest there is I'm aware of on the global stage at the moment is the elders which is a group of previous states people from across the world and they just allows them to be that little bit more holistic and sort of above politics again and I think even domestically I think there's a role for that something you know we've talked about a future generations commissioner or or some format where somebody is sitting and helping give that level of scrutiny and obviously parliament has a very strong strong role there and even financially I would like to see personally I would love to see us be a bit more ambitious around funding some of this too so I'd like to see a sort of future generations fund being established a bit like the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund because again we've got to find mechanisms domestically and internationally to fund some of this change or it really is going to struggle thank you thanks very much Fiona Lehmke has a supplemental to be followed by Jackie Dunbar yes thanks convener and it is important to follow the science but if we accept as the climate change committee has said that there will still be a major demand for oil and gas by 2050 in the UK what does the science suggest that we do to satisfy that demand whilst minimising the climate impact? Professor Ray? Yes I mean anything I get to the science tells us and the international energy agency kind of break new ground with this with their statement in terms of modelling what gets us to 1.5 in the Paris agreement which is no investment in new oil and gas as well as coal so in terms of that context you then look at within the UK where we need to get to in terms of our net zero target which is 2050 and our oil and gas demand and look at how quickly we can phase that out so not just phase it down but phase it out and I think that has to be in the context always of what is happening globally so we've got to say a parallel in agriculture where if we stop producing food and so the emissions from that we still have to import food so we do have to face that question okay if we stop oil and gas tomorrow and we're still needing it then we have to import it so in terms of where the atmosphere is is seeing the the kind of benefit there is no benefit we're just offshoring that that should not stop us from going really hard at actually withdrawing our dependence on fossil fuels and looking at ensuring that we comply with that international energy agency scenario of not opening up new extraction for oil and gas it's really interesting I guess the political reality of COP26 in terms of a lot of emphasis on coal and a lot of nations who have moved away from coal already saying right you know we need to get everyone to move away from coal and that's that's quite right from the scientific perspective but it's easily said when you're no longer relying on coal we're in that position now where it's hard for us to say actually we need to get away from oil and gas because we still depend on it hundreds 100 000 jobs huge revenues you know it is a huge part of our economy that should not stop us making the difficult decisions in terms of phasing that out as rapidly as possible in that global context of not offshoring the emissions associated with it and also in that context of like I say the international energy agency that we should not be investing in new oil and gas as well as coal. Thank you for that I'll put the same question to Mike Robinson but perhaps I might add to it in so far as obviously Professor Ray's addressed that question and suggested that and it effectively equated the oil and gas industry to jobs and energy generation but of course the climate change committee is saying there will still be a demand for oil and gas in 2050 and it's not just because of the energy generation it's because of the uses of oil and gas and things like plastics whatever it might be the fact is we are still going to need oil and gas in 2050 and the question I go back to which Professor Ray alluded to is where do we get that from because you either get it locally Mike Robinson or you import it as Professor Ray pointed out so what does the science suggest is the best way to do that to minimise the climate impact until let's say 2050. I think it's hard to say that the science has a categorical answer for that because some of that is about choices but as as Dave pointed out the international energy agency made a very strong statement and there's no requirement for new oil and gas so we already know about enough of it and we already know where it is. We already import quite a lot of oil so that isn't really going to necessarily change and maybe that's something that we just have to do but equally that also doesn't necessarily take account of some of the things that we may see moving forward more rapidly as prices mechanisms change and price triggers change and I think we will find an awful lot more formal recycling of particularly plastics going forward which hasn't been there in the past. I think there's lots of different sort of innovative interventions that you can take but specifically where do we buy the oil from that isn't a scientific decision that's not a science goal quite honestly either you import it or you try and produce it yourself I think is what you're alluding to but there isn't but if we stick within the IEA's guidelines that there is no need for new oil it depends whether we've got any left or not. Thank you Liam, Jackie Dunbar please. Good morning and can I just thank you both for coming along today to talk to us. Most of my points have probably been covered already especially in regards to what Scotland should be doing. Looking inwards I'd like to ask you what you think the Scottish Parliament should be doing now I know you've already said that putting politics to the side would be a good start and decisions need to be made but I'd really like you to maybe dig down a bit further and give me your views and also what expert advice should the Scottish Parliament be tapping into moving forward. I've already alluded to the fact that for your committee your inquiry is spot on in terms of looking at local government and their cross sectoral partners in terms of delivering net zero. I mean I guess in terms of specifics within that and I'm sure you've discussed this already but looking at the role of public bodies as part of that as well so this is my own bias but I think it's crucial and it echoes what Mike was saying earlier the capacity within local government, public bodies, the cities, the towns that kind of local scale what is the capacity to deliver resilient net zero a bit like we were talking with some of the developing small states not having capacity to report effectively under the Paris agreement we need that capacity for action at that local level so that would be something really important for I think your committee and for parliament to make sure is there and if it's not asked the right questions about how it's brought forward so looking at exemplars so Scottish Water who you know I work with a lot I think they they're a really good example of a public body which is wrestled with these things but the duties they've got in terms of reporting obviously they've expanded in terms of things like scope three emissions and indirect emissions the governance within for instance local local authorities local government is there the capacity there the issues around procurement I know you've talked about that a lot and planning and transport all of these things adaptation they do come back down to that that place-based approach which against Scotland is famous for what is their capacity to do it not just in say the central belt where we might have the equivalent of a rich country capacity for this stuff but actually for the whole of Scotland because it has to be the whole nation the other things I would if I had my my wish list I guess for parliament it would be for I guess the convener's group for the committees certainly for all of you as committees to I guess you do talk a lot on many issues but talk a lot about climate change because this is whole economy whole society and your scrutiny your role in that needs to be well joined up so there aren't gaps so there aren't parts of the economy or our society that fall through those gaps because again that will undermine that sustainable transition to net zero and the final one would be I guess you asked where you would get expertise from so part of that is obviously the climate change committee will give their latest progress report in a week or so for Scotland and that should be a really good source of information in terms of where they see progress I'm still really keen and hopefully we will have a climate change committee Scotland so there's something which gives us that more focus that more granular information but also you're probably already doing this so forgive me if I'm teaching grandmother to suck eggs but talk to other committees around the world so the climate change committee is a good example of a cot they launched the international network of climate councils so that includes various nations showing how they are giving independent independent advice to governments but from this committee's perspective talking to the US equivalent talking to the equivalents in other nations even at sub national level as well to share those mistakes share those successes and share those challenges I think is it goes back to us we always punch above our weight in Scotland in so many ways and one of the key ways we punch above our weight is in sharing our knowledge sharing the the kind of the progress we're making and on climate change that's that's like I said several times I'm saying to Fiona it's probably one of our biggest responsibilities but actually one of the ways we can have our most substantial positive impact so so yeah all of you have too much work already I know but that good communication and collaboration is going to be vital in terms of helping other nations do what hopefully Scotland is already starting to do thank you hand it over to Mike Robertson see if you'd like to add anything yeah not not to add a huge amount really I think that sort of some of that political scrutiny it's good to be around government departments I still don't think it's joined up or as shared responsibility as it could be and should be there's still too much of a sort of sense that it's someone else's job in some areas so I think just scrutiny of budgets scrutiny of public bodies scrutiny of government departments in terms of commitments they're making and scrutiny of public procurement there just needs to be a sense check across the board and so that to me is a very obvious area I think climate change should be represented on every committee and every board in Scotland in some way but that probably requires more universal education more generally but equally again as Dave was sort of saying I think there's a there's another role around this and that is that the lessons the Parliament have learned and they they have shown leadership around this and other parliaments are interested in that and the processes that have been undergone to achieve that so I think again like Dave was starting looking to that sort of international arena as well just to share those lessons more broadly. Okay also if I could ask you Mike you were saying earlier that some countries are drugging their heels and we need to be taken some of the fear out with that in mind how do you think the Scottish Parliament can help to support and develop the international best practices going forward? I think the first thing is just finding ways to share them of course we do have very strong alliances in many of these places some informal particularly I mean not all of them I mean Iran Kazakhstan Russia maybe not so much but Australia Canada the US we've got very strong alliances and very strong connections so and I just think it's that opportunity to say you know that we have actually taken some of this on board and we're still here you know that's not caused massive problems we're still in a process so I but I do think it probably requires looking to all the different avenues that we have to influence those societies those communities and I think there are a lot of connections that we have both through both through business both through the NGO community through cultural connections as well as parliamentary ones and I think we just need to look at leadership in all of those arenas and for support in all of those arenas so for me we would just yeah just recognise that we have a positive role in encouraging them and nurturing them on to this on to this necessary journey and use the leaders that we have at our disposal to influence that thank you just finish off convener could ask Dave if he would like to add anything no I think I think we've covered it I mean I guess one of the capacity issues is going to be with your time because if you look at the committees across parliament yours your in the real hot seat I guess over the coming years so making sure you fit I mean I think spice are great and and hopefully you're getting good advice from from academia in terms of all of our great universities and institutions like I say you're going to need that and plenty of capacity in terms of all the stuff you need to look at but it will be worth it if we have that comprehensive scrutiny that Mike was leading to thank you very much thanks very much Jackie Mark Ruskell briefly please yeah thanks um can I just ask if you've got any brief reflections then on on what remains of the UK presidency in the run-up to cop 27 what what you see is the kind of key milestones or objectives that the UK needs to be aiming for um and also just the linkage with the biodiversity cop as well I think you know we saw some significant text I think in the Glasgow pact around biodiversity in the nature emergency but what do you think that should look like now in terms of alignment with the cop 15 on biodiversity so any any brief thoughts on those would be great um Mike do you want to go first oh Dave you got your pen up I was just going to pitch in quickly on the UK presidency mark because that will run through until the beginning of November next year for me the the key job one of the the most important job they probably got is to realise that 100 billion dollars a year in terms of climate finance which was failed in 2020 and now in 2021 obviously there's a plan in place to reach the equivalency of that by going above 100 billion dollars a year I think by 2023 but that's that's very much something that the UK needs to deliver on because it was one of the it's one of the failures even before we started cop you know and it and like Mike was saying it it's it's clouded a lot of the discussions it probably was a factor in the the phase down rather than phase out and that they really need to nail that you know I think there was a lot of good stuff like I said that came out cop 26 some of it down to the UK presidency a lot of it down to other nations efforts as well but that 100 billion needs to be delivered and any any thoughts on the relation to the to the biodiversity copper toe only that I know I know you talked to Jim about this last week that it was good to see at cop 26 it wasn't brand new that actually there's that over recognition of the the crucial links between the nature crisis and the climate crisis the nature based solutions kind of that whole suite of those got a lot of attention at cop 26 and will continue to do so I think that the phase two for coming is going to be will very much be in the context of IPCC and IP best in terms of their reports and the the synergies I mean again this is gas half full you know what I'm like so many synergies in terms of addressing those twin global challenges but also the antagonisms the issues that we've seen in terms of reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation how it all fits into things like carbon markets and safeguarding people's rights human rights all of those things it's nice the conversations are happening and it's linked together and it's really good that the full six assessment report from the climate side coincides with with both those cops so yeah I think we're on a good trajectory there Mike I think the critical thing of course is that we don't you know relinquish the chair until next November and we should use it you should use the full 12 months and not just the two weeks of cop in terms of biodiversity I do you think that generally that there's a sense that that's being left behind a wee bit there's absolutely nowhere near the same amount of focus on the biodiversity cop as that has been on the climate change cop and yet to a degree they are obviously twin crises and we so I think actually just giving it the the fuel of publicity and talking about it more and tackling it more head-on I think is absolutely critical so I think signals are really important whilst we retain the chair and making the connections is really critical ultimately I would love us to use the next few months to actually make more of a challenge I agree with Dave that we've got to get the 100 billion commitment because otherwise it's just too much it's too easy to say well the west isn't doing what it should be doing so why should anyone else but I would love us still to use the months ahead to try and actually make a challenge to Egypt so that we're we put our Glasgow demands to sham our shake and actually use the whole of the 12 months period and not you know not just two weeks yep thanks thanks very much mark that brings us to the end of our allotty time Dave Mike thank you very much for joining us thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule and for sharing your excellent insights into some of the outcomes of cop 26 and what we have to look forward to as a committee and I use that phrase look forward to with as a positive challenge that you've laid out for not just this committee but but the Scottish Parliament in general thank you again and enjoy the rest of your day I now suspend the meeting for a quick changeover of panel thank you welcome back everyone I'm pleased to welcome our second panel of witnesses Teresa Anderson climate policy coordinator action aid international and coordinator of the climate action network working group on agriculture mary church head of campaigns friends of the earth scotland and jess pepper funding director of the climate cafe welcome to each of you thank you very much for joining the committee session today to look out the outcomes of cop 26 I understand that jess pepper and Teresa Anderson would like to make a short opening statement so perhaps I can hand over to jess pepper to begin and then bring in Teresa Anderson thank you thank you good morning and thank you for an invitation to join you this morning I wanted just to give a brief introduction to explain the perspective that I can bring to the committee I'm not an expert in all the technical aspects of a cop but was taking very much more perspective from community angle and working with people throughout and in the lead up to cop 26 climate cafe is a grassroots initiative which creates space for communities to have their own conversations about climate change and take action and these spaces can be created in communities but also in campuses and workplaces as well and in the run up to cop 26 we were working with the climate reality project with international network there and the climate crisis film festival to create these spaces in the run up to but also around Glasgow working with communities and public spaces and also online connecting communities across Scotland with communities around the world to engage in a dialogue about cop and what was going on in Glasgow and the reason for doing that was partly because of course this is a fourth cop in the global north and it was important to create that space to have that dialogue and include those who could bring a perspective from the global south as well so just in my role today I don't claim to be representing all climate cafes these are spaces which are unique to the people in place where they happen but I can hopefully contribute from a place where I'm informed by the conversations that have been going on over the last few months and throughout cop as well and I can comment on what some of the observations are about what was going on inside the room but also outside of the main negotiations from that perspective if that's helpful to the committee as well thank you thanks very much Jess that's a very helpful introduction and let me bring in Theresa Anderson please thanks very much convener and the committee for inviting action aid and myself to the discussions today I'll focus my introductory remarks on two issues loss and damage and net zero at cop 26 more than ever before citizens from Scotland the UK Europe the world really clearly did tell their Governments that they want to see the UNFCC providing support to people who need to recover and rebuild in the aftermath of climate disasters the public really does understand that climate action means we cannot leave the women and girls on the and you know the small holder farmers the indigenous peoples on the front lines of the climate crisis to deal with the problem on their own every single developing country representing the vast majority of humanity called for the UNFCC to find the address this critical gap so Governments at cop really began to feel that pressure and talk seriously about the need for a funding facility to address loss and damage we welcomed the initiative of the Scottish government to announce a modest one million symbolic contribution to a loss and damage fund to get the bull rolling and help build pressure on the wealthier countries to acknowledge their responsibility so given the expectation and the pressure that built on this issue we were hugely disappointed that the US in the end didn't budge while we were really heartened that many more countries did after hearing pressure from their citizens so you can be sure that the issue of loss and damage will be central to climate talks next year at cop 27 in Egypt and another notable aspect of cop 26 will are of announcements and initiatives made by governments and corporations in some ways this noise did feel designed to distract from the lack of real commitments in national NDCs the lack of real climate finance and the lack of real movements in negotiations although some announcements were meaningful many of them did come with nickel paper work to scrutinise a lot of them were just outright greenwash like a mixed mash of different initiatives with no real criteria or standards and hard to assess it is really worrying that so many net zero climate targets are so full of carbon offsets and are set to deliver only 30 years from now so if you could add up all of the offsets hidden in all the hundreds and four thousands of net zero targets declared by governments and corporations you do realise that there is not enough land or technological capacity to offset all the emissions from all the fossil fuels that are being dug up continuously from underground so the maths of net zero doesn't really add up yet we really need governments and parliamentarians and leaders and all of you to start the urgent conversation on the radical transformations and just transitions that are needed to avert runaway climate breakdown by bringing emissions down to real zero thank you very much thank you very much Teresa I would now like to bring in Mary Church who would also like to provide an opening statement Mary please thank you convener and thanks also for inviting friends the earth scotland um to this session um yeah just listening to the evidence at last big session and half listening um to the first panel this morning um a few things to to sort of open with and add to that um our view at friends the earth scotland and also the view of our friends the earth international federation is that cop 26 will be remembered as an historic failure actually to close the gap on 1.5 degrees and uh you know where countries who are responsible for causing the crisis continued this pattern of trying to shift the burden of responsibility for solving the climate crisis onto the shoulders of the poorest um you know we heard uh from the speakers earlier about some of the challenges within the cop process and you know what really needed to happen in Glasgow to unblock these of ongoing tensions at the heart of the UNF triple C process was for the rich historical polluters including and especially the UK as cop presidency to really come to the table with political will and concrete policies to do their fair share of climate action instead what we saw was you know despite the ever-increasing urgency despite the code red for humanity these countries really came to the table with with nothing really new or very very little new particularly in terms of the urgently needed climate finance you know they blocked and delayed on finance for loss and damage and they pushed through loopholes to allow themselves to keep polluting while giving the illusion of acting um for example through the language on you know a global goal for net zero around mid-century and on the deal on on carbon markets we've had also about the inclusion of language on fossil fuels in the Glasgow pact and that's been hailed as historic and of course it is you know it is historic and it's a first in the history of the UNF triple C that language is is really incredibly weak and not least in in the fact that it really focuses on coal and ignores oil and gas largely so once again putting the greater onus on poorer countries to act shifting that burden of responsibility just touching briefly in terms of what next and how outcomes from the cop need to be translated into Scotland I mean after 26 or 27 cops actually is pretty clear that you know that's not really the level which changes is achieved its policies at the local and national level so here in Scotland and in every nation around the world that will really turn the climate crisis around the important thing that Scotland can do is get on with implementing policies here at home to cut emissions and deliver a just transition and crucially that involves for us revisiting and strengthening the climate change plan so that we have a robust and credible roadmap meeting our 2030 targets thank you very much Mary and and thank you for those opening remarks they provide us with a very good context for our question session which we move on to now in the previous panel we heard there were a number of positive outcomes of cop 26 but also a number of gaps and I think those gaps have been highlighted in in the opening remarks on on this panel I would like to ask each of you what you see is the as we transition and look forward to cop 27 and the remainder of the UK presidency what would you see is the absolute critical items that have to be on the agenda and the action ahead of and that cop 27 I think you touched on some of them but I think it would be great to hear your further thoughts in terms of the the gaps remaining and the urgent actions required perhaps I can start with Teresa and then bring in Mary after that I guess I would say that the key priorities in this area for preparation for cop 26 would be moving on the issue of loss and damage and on finance because we know that the vast majority of humanity is asking desperately for the loss and damage issue to be addressed for context you know we we know that there is some climate finance if you want to transition to greener pathways there is some climate finance if you want to adapt to future impacts but if you're hit by cyclones by floods by droughts by rising sea levels the the current system says sorry you're on your own and that is completely unacceptable it was remarkable to see the pressure that built and countries shifting during the process of cop and Scotland's initiative definitely was welcome and we welcome Scotland's continued leadership and strengthening of that but the US continued to be the blockage so all the talk about alliances and global diplomacy loss and damage has got to be a very very key part of that a second part is the climate finance because if we want to unlock the the global progress and movement on on these cross cutting on language if we want global language that applies to all such as the sticky issue of coal and fossil fuels then that needs to be underpinned and unlocked by a system that can work for all so currently the the climate finance that is being delivered even though it is failing to meet the 100 billion dollar target which was set 10 years ago by the way that 100 billion dollar target was was developed was you know was pretty much plucked out of thin air by by the wealthier countries it wasn't based on a needs assessment but it's so it's hugely insufficient but the majority 71% of the funds that are coming through through the climate finance system is actually in the form of loans so the real funds coming through to help countries you know recover adapt and and transition is just you know still peanuts and so we are putting a huge unrealistic burden on the global south an unfair expectations on mitigation without the follow-up for finance and and that really was the the issue that underpinned those last hours of COP that that that was the basis of India's objection to being being obliged to to take on these changes without having the the resources and support for to be able to make those changes so loss and damage and finance but then I think one more thing if I can would be to say it is really time that if we're serious about the 1.5 degree target we have to stop imagining that we can solve this with small tinkering and carbon offsets I really do not feel there is anything like the conversation needed about the deep transformative system change that is needed and so there is an urgent you know beyond time need to talk about the real transformations required in our energy agriculture transport construction industry systems we do need task forces to think about what what what the planet has to look like to me at 1.5 and how we get there because currently it feels like we're starting from where we are rather than starting from the vision and and working and figuring out how to get there so thanks for that thanks very much Teresa let me ask her the same question of mary church please thanks convener I mean I would agree with Teresa's comment certainly closing the gap on climate finance is is essential 27 and it's important to note I think this was partially raised in the previous panel but this annual or this sort of review of NDCs in the year ahead of top 27 that's mitigation so there's no urging or requiring of nations to come and have revisited their climate finance commitments ahead of 27 so that is something you know that's a real failing in terms of the Glasgow pact and the cop26 outcomes and that's something that should be revisited by the cop presidency in the year to Egypt yeah also agree with comments on loss and damage I think the other key thing is really for the UK government the UK presidency you know to get its own house in order so showing leadership as the presidency is really important frankly that's not what we saw in the run-up to cop26 you know there were real issues around participation at the Glasgow summit so you know far from being the most inclusionary cop as the UK government claimed it would be it was actually one of the most exclusionary cops we've we've ever seen and also actions ahead of you know cutting the overseas development aid budget earlier this year slashing airport passenger duty in the days before the summit opened you know there's 40 fossil fuel projects in the pipeline in the UK approval before 2020 including you know the highly controversial cambo oilfield the whitehaven coal mine you know this isn't climate leadership you know the UK really needs to get its own house in order to show you know show the way to other nations to bring other nations particularly global north nations along because just you know expanding on the points I made in my opening statement what's really needed to unblock you know the blockages in the UNFCCC processes is for rich countries who've caused the crisis you know they're most to cause the crisis well with that sort of you know showing how they're going to do their fair share climate action so these long-term tensions in in the cop process they they really arise around these these central questions of equity historical responsibility capacity to act so questions are really at the heart of of climate justice thanks very much Mary and let me bring in a just paper on the same question thank you so yeah cop while you know there's been plenty commentary on what was and what wasn't achieved in the talks clearly there is a much better and wider awareness of that we were not achieving the scale and pace that is required to have a chance of staying below one point high to these or to meet the needs of those who are being impacted upon most and that with that clarity on the urgency and the impacts what really needs to happen now over very quickly is that the commitments that were heard in the talks the communities need to be seeing that translated into action on the ground and already can hear that conversation building outside the talks the movement of people growing in scale and momentum the new connections new collaborations the new learning and insight and credit to the cop 26 coalition and the stock climate chaos coalition amongst many more is connecting communities in a new way and connecting people across different interests and experience as well and across the world connecting with people who are suffering the impacts of the front line in the global south hearing more from indigenous peoples all of this sharing experiences and learning and collaborating means that there's a greater literacy and understanding and urgency and impatience interestingly one thing which is struck me from hearing people who have been engaged in quite a perhaps in a lighter touch way and responding to the climate emergency previously in their own communities actually are feeling much more energized to be engaged in a much more active way but even questioning how they should be acting people who might not have felt that they would you know go out on the streets before talking about well actually do I need to be doing that now and interestingly I'm noticing I'm hearing that on a demographic which is older than previously if I'd noticed in these conversations and so that's been quite understanding quite interesting to observe but that ensures should ensure that the delivery and the consistency of the action in response to the language and the commitments and discussion in cop 26 should be coming through within the next year and I think actually the public appetite for that is not going to be hanging back or waiting for that that's going to be expecting and asking and agitating for it the issues like loss in damage for example I have noticed a much greater shift in understanding and discussion about climate in terms of climate justice and in terms of loss in damage and what our responsibilities are and it was very interesting to see that really gather pace in the world outside the talks as it came to the final conclusions inside the talks as well so there's a lot to be done over the next year and I think one thing which hasn't had an awful lot of light shed on it for a wider constituency but may come is just how the process was set up and how actually it wasn't necessarily as inclusive and accessible as it was claimed beforehand so I think there's more to come on that which people are asking about having got an interest watching the talks so close to home. Thanks very much Jess. Each of you have mentioned increasing awareness of climate change as an issue and during cop 26 I was on a panel with Sir John Curtis who shared some polling analysis about climate change in Scotland. He mentioned that it is increasingly becoming a very important issue for voters but voters don't really understand what's involved, what they will be asked to do as an individual to reach the 2013, the 2045 transition targets to net zero. Question is I guess do you agree with that in terms of the level of understanding of what these actions will involve and secondly what briefly if I can what do you think the Scottish Government and the Parliament can do to increase those levels of awareness and perhaps Jess given your background maybe I can start with you. Sure so what we notice is a shift in the huge number of people wanting to be involved in the conversation in a way which is appropriate for them that they feel comfortable with and people asking for more information asking how they can be making a difference what are the most impactful differences that people can make in their own lives obviously in every different community there are different needs there are different challenges there are different opportunities and there's a real this is why you know the climate cafe conversations seem to generate sometimes hyper local conversations which then connect with a wider global conversation there's a frustration sometimes about the lack of easily accessible information to inform people's own actions and where that is provided people are then talking more about okay how can we make this happen and just to quote one of the climate cafes which was held with the Glasgow Kelvin college during cop 26 people were saying they need to see the commitment we hear all the time about consistency between the promises and the rhetoric in terms of being delivered in action but people needing to see the commitment and the investment and this comes back to the talk about public spending and the previous panel as well and the infrastructure to enable people to make those changes so that's something which people do you know they want to see that happening and they want because folk want to take action themselves it's just how they can do that and it being impossible for them to do that how can the the Parliament help well one of the ways which has actually come up from the climate cafe before and I think I shared when the committee the eclair committee were considering their green recovery thinking was that people would really like to hear regular updates on where things are at and understand where their roles and responsibilities fit so you know like we had for covid for example having a route map which puts in place what was referred to last week and previously a plan but with all the timetables and resources and milestones to ensure that we know where we're going and we all understand our roles and responsibilities and achieving that is something which people would welcome and they would welcome regular updates to hear you know what progress is being made there and how they fit and that would flush out where action is being easily achieved or where there's perhaps some confusion or under resourcing or also where there are challenges so those can be removed and tackled rather than it all accumulating for say a year and then discovering that actually something's been holding up progress all the time and people could feel you know okay this is overwhelming but actually I get my role in this now and I see where others like my local authority or these public bodies or these businesses are going to play their role as well and that would make it more accessible and transparent and accountable to people. That seems to be a feedback we've heard. That's great. Thank you very much, Jess. I have the same question to Mary Church, please. Thanks, convener. I mean with Jess I think people do understand you know not just that the reality of the climate crisis is already with us right, they're seeing and experiencing in some cases the impacts of the climate crisis already here in Scotland, in other countries of the global north you know this is no longer a case of simply seeing impacts in the most vulnerable countries but also here in the relatively insulated global north as well so you know they've heard the warnings from the IPCC, the 1.5 report, the code red report earlier this year you know they see live and clear that climate change is an issue, they want governments to act, they want the Parliament to act and I think they do know what the solutions to the climate crisis are but where there's confusion is about the lack of clear plans on the government side about what will be implemented when so they know that fossil fuels need to be phased out for example, they know that we need to shift from private car use to public transport etc but what they're not seeing is those concrete plans to deliver on that and that's you know that's something that the government and the Parliament obviously need to deliver on you know it's worth sort of reflecting that the code red earlier this year you know the warning from the IPCC is that we will be hitting we will be reaching 1.5 degrees of warming within the next decade and you know only a few years ago the sort of the time scales that we were talking about they were they were all quite sort of far off and it felt very safe or for some of us perhaps it felt very safe you know happily underground by 2050 and not having to worry about the impacts at that stage but you know to think about 1.5 and the impacts of 1.5 hitting within the next decade you know pretty much everyone you know around the table and virtually around the table in this room will still be around then and those of us in you know decision making positions we will be held accountable for you know what we have and haven't done to deliver on you know our climate targets to avoid that really critical 1.5 threshold. Thanks very much Mary and the same question to Theresa Anderson please. Yeah thanks I mean individual action in the absence of government policy to incentivise the right thing can remain niche but there is definitely a very fruitful and synergistic relationship between public knowledge and expectation and what makes things possible politically because like people as we saw with the experience with loss and damage and climate justice that Jess alluded to as well you know people change the safe space for governments to move into so it and you know create an excitement about just transition and expectation to deliver on solidarity and climate finance so there is a clear role for civil society in shaping the expectations as we've seen this this cop has been a huge success in that and there is a role of government to identify where subsidies and tariffs and investments policies and regulations like currently incentivise the wrong kind of action and actually make it hard for individuals to do the right thing and where these can be shifted and and how that can be done through inclusive processes that address inequality that enable change through planning and policies and and reskilling and social protection so there's a there's a real synergistic role between that but I think you could we shouldn't be expecting the individuals to be to be leading on this without the without the government policies in place to really make the right things possible. Thank you very much. Theresa Mark Roskell has a supplemental in this area to be followed by Fiona Hyslop. In the final Glasgow text there was I think for the first time a recognition of of a just transition but I'm wondering about what the definition of that is because when I was in the blue zone I was walking around all of the country pavilions from the oil and gas producing states and I think you know their their definition seemed to be we're going to continue extracting oil and gas because you know we need it we're going to continue burning it and we're going to make that just transition by investing in carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen so that seemed to be one kind of definition of just transition. On the other hand he had states forming the beyond oil and gas alliance where they're actually saying phase out but over time not turning the taps off overnight on oil and gas so it seems to be a lot of different interpretations there and I just wondered what what your kind of views were of of where that global conversation is and do we have clarity here on what a just transition for oil and gas actually looks like? Mary should we start with you? Yeah thanks for that Mark. Yeah just transition does appear in the text a couple of times it's not actually the first time just transition was included in the preamble of the Paris agreement as well and it's pretty much the same language that's been taken from the Paris agreement into the Glasgow pact. There's also an additional inclusion of language around just transition specifically in relation to the inclusion of the text around fossil fuels it also appears there that's maybe the the new base in which it comes up and of course that part of the text you know there's been a lot of scrutiny of of that part of the text in terms of the watering down at the last minute and arguably yeah you're right the the inclusion of just transition in that part of the text and the the the language around unabated coal and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies arguably that risks the the really important concept of just transition being used to account an existence for fossil fuels and to you know put our put our faith in these of really full solutions these of dangerous distractions that are are and capture and storage and and other such negative emissions technologies in terms of what just transition needs to look like I mean certainly where we're coming from it must involve the phase out of all fossil fuels and that's that's got to be global but you know that also has to happen in an equitable fashion and I think a lot of the criticism that India and China got for those last minute interventions you know in that perception of watering down of the text was really because India was trying to just inject a bit of balance inject a bit of equity back into the text you know away from this of this focus on coal and you know what we would see there was actually a report that was published which we can share with the committee afterwards if that would be helpful a report that was published by a broad coalition of international civil society groups called the civil society review released during during the COP about what a you know a fair shares phase out of fossil fuels would look like globally and what that says is it sort of discusses five principles for a fair shares phase out and the first of which is phasing down global extraction at a pace consistent with 1.5 degrees which is obvious you know we can't you know continue to prioritise fossil fuel profits over the lives of billions of people around the world it calls for a just transition for workers and communities so the creation of decent green jobs protection of rights and livelihoods ensuring that unions and workers and affected communities are the actors in in the shift to zero carbon it calls for curbing extraction consistent with environmental justice so a phase out first where people and the environment are disproportionately harmed by extraction and it calls also and this is crucial in in terms of you know UK and Scotland as first movers it calls for reducing extraction the fastest where it would we're doing so would have the least social costs so poorer countries and countries where fossil fuels are you know a disproportionately high part of the economy are much more at risk from an abrupt and shorter term transition and so rich historical polluters really must phase out first and you know in terms of the UK you know it's very really relatively very small part of our economy only 0.1% of public revenue comes from fossil fuel extraction and then the fifth principle is in terms of sharing the costs of the transition barely according to the ability to pay so rich historical polluters supporting the phase out in the global south through the provision of climate finance and technology okay thanks um Teresa yes oh yeah hi so yeah the term just transition was developed and lifted up really by the unions so it is taken largely by by the vast majority of us to be an approach that centres workers in as action aid we we took the lessons of just transition in fossil fuels and thought about what that would mean when we applied them to agriculture because we also recognise we need a shift from polluting industrialised agricultural systems to ways that work with nature like agroecology so we we thought about what that would mean and in that process we came up with some so four principles which I'll share here because I think they might help anyway I mean there are action aid principles but they have had some influence in the sector and they've also been agreed like our colleagues at the ITUC the international trade union confederation likes that framing too the first principle that we identify is that a just transition needs to address and not exacerbate inequality it needs to transform systems to work for people nature in the climate it needs to be inclusive and participatory processes so that means including the people who's who will be effective in shaping a future that can be better for them but it also means including the people who are often invisible and left out and not really recognised in the system like the members of the community the women who who are all part of that livelihood but who aren't necessarily the direct workers themselves in you know including that broader marginalised community in that conversation because this affects them just as much as anyone and then having complex fourth point is about having comprehensive planning and policy frameworks so you know you can have these at regional or local or national level but also bearing in mind the role of training and reskilling and education social protection the role of subsidies climate finance really having an integrated policy framework that helps all of this to happen and helps communities to make the shift to a better future and if done well a just transition can really help communities that might otherwise block and resist change to really welcome it and be enthusiastic about it so that's why we develop those principles we note that the term just transition does currently tend to focus on the livelihoods issue and the issue when it comes to fossil fuels anyway is broader than that it's also about energy it's also about the tax base for many you know for some countries like Nigeria it's like something like 70 percent of their tax base so that is real issues that need to be resolved we need to check those numbers that it was Nigeria but if I remember correctly it would be so diversification is really really critical to that just transition but like many terms you know these can in some spaces be co-opted I'm not currently too alarmed that the term just transition is being used in these sort of very superficial ways at the moment we you know most people are still using it in a way that centres justice in the thinking and forces us to think about the most marginalised rather than the most powerful thanks and Jess yeah I can't comment to the text and then finally a cop itself but we'd just acknowledge that these conversations about just transition are happening in communities and we're happening in parts of Glasgow during the cop process obviously inspired and informed by wider conversations about just transition but the smaller stories about what that looks like and feels like in communities and I just would acknowledge that that system approach is so important to enabling to the just transition but the principles that today's has just outlined actually when talking about how Scotland can be approaching the work that we need to be doing and how the Parliament can be supporting that work those are the principles which we keep coming back to in terms of including in participation and the comprehensive framework just having all of that in place and enhancing rather than exacerbating enhancing inequalities rather than exacerbating inequalities these are all principles of that whole wider conversation that we can apply in terms of how the the Parliament may be able to support this transition as well which would be valued from the local level right through to those who want that certainty in business and for planning in their own way as well. I'm very interested in the geopolitical challenges ahead of COP 27. Other colleagues will talk about the domestic aspects to reflecting on Scotland. I was interested in hearing what you were saying in relation to climate finance. We know that loss and damage is going to be huge for the next year but the climate finance points that you were saying about the sense of realism perhaps that the China-India intervention brought what do you think that means now in order to try and advance the position of phasing out of coal in India what would need to be realised in terms of that climate finance that we spoke of and particularly for you Theresa that the same question is about the geopolitics of the likes of the role of China and Russia and India from COP 26 and where we go forward but also what are your international networks telling you what is the global system theory telling you as a result of the COP 26 in the Glasgow pact so Mary first and then to Theresa yeah so thanks for that I think in terms of the the climate finance is it's it's part of this sort of coming to the table and showing you know that we in the global north sort of understand our responsibility in causing the problem and that we're prepared to take that responsibility on an act right and that's what will bring the likes of China and India forward in their commitments to and it is actually worth saying that you know this this fair shares analysis so fair shares analysis is is work done actually again by that same wide coalition of civil society organisations internationally it's rooted in the climate equity reference group which the analysis is rooted in the climate equity reference group which takes the principles from the UNFCCC so it takes the principles of equity of historical responsibility of comment but differentiated responsibility it takes the science of remaining carbon budgets it looks at development threshold so it looks at the right to to develop cleanly for countries of the global south which is also enshrined in the UNFCCC so they're right to you know what's remaining of the atmospheric space to pollute essentially it's that crudely it takes all of those elements and it comes up with an analysis of who needs to do what right in terms of emissions reductions and in terms of climate finance and what it found was you know back in 2014-15 ahead of the Paris agreement it found that most developing countries including China and India were actually already committed to doing you know their fair share or more of climate action and really where things were failing where falling down where global north countries failing to step up and cut their emissions fast enough and provide that vital climate finance because of course developing country NDCs you know there's the conditional and unconditional part of those and the conditional part is reliant on global north climate finance technology transfer and other forms of so the kind of climate finance and the kind of action that we need to see you know we did a we based on this on this climate equity reference group analysis we produced some work looking at what you know the UK's fair share would be and that showed that if the UK was to reduce its own emissions to zero by 2030 so actually the UK's fair share was to reduce its own emissions by 200 per cent by 2030 which of course is physically impossible right but if it was to reduce its own emissions to zero which is physically possible by 2030 then it would be it would owe something in the region of one trillion of climate finance to the global south right now that's a lot of money it sounds and obviously where the UK's climate targets only get to net zero by 2050 so you know the way it works is if you're only getting to net zero by 2050 rather than 2030 what you owe in climate finance obviously goes up to compensate for that you know the big numbers one trillion but actually you know what we've seen over the last you know over the last few years but also over the last decade is you know that governments can mobilise and they do mobilise this kind of finance when they think they need to so you know we saw with the bailout of of the banks in 2007 2008 that the sums in excess of one trillion were mobilised to support the banks when it was considered that they were too big to fail you know our planet is too big to fail right our ecosystems are too big to fail this this crisis is is too big to ignore more recently we've also seen you know the the kind of sums that have been mobilised both here in the UK and and globally to respond to the Covid crisis you know in in the trillions as well so this kind of finance it is available governments can come up with it and you know they really must come up with it if we to see that kind of corresponding action from countries who are you know big polluters in terms of you know the amount that they're emitting within their borders today not necessarily such big polluters in terms of their per capita emissions and you know certainly not big polluters in terms of their historical responsibility thank you and Teresa yeah I would say in terms of the international networks and attitudes to the Glasgow pact I mean the rhetoric inside the UK is quite different from the rest of the world the rest of the world really sees it as the global north countries continuing to block action climate action and climate finance you know so we came in to this process with this failure to meet the 100 billion targets set a decade ago the major you know the target is insufficient the majority of it is loans most of what is coming through is going towards mitigation which is in the interest of the global north little on adaptation and nothing on loss and damage so there's a real sense and a real skepticism around the world that you know that the the rich countries when they talk about climate action it's entirely self interested and you know that they want others to fix the problem on mitigation without really wanting to do much themselves or provide what is needed to make it happen so a lot of bluffing and and cynicism around really china and india they are often seen as speaking for themselves in isolation but let's not forget they often speak with their g77 hat on as part of the wider block when they express their concerns about equity and there's and so that that as mary is outlying there is real defensiveness and concern about the pressure for global south countries who simply do not have the resources to to undertake the mitigation without required support because if you put yourself in the shoes of a vulnerable country dealing with the aftermath of a cyclone whatever little resources you have are going to spend on rebuild and recovery and you still don't have enough to help communities bridge the gap and avoid falling into a poverty spiral you don't have enough to help people rebuild their schools and or their homes or or or avoid hunger but whatever you do you spend on that and if you have any pennies left you want to spend it on becoming resilient to future impacts but it's simply not when you're being pummeled by disasters it is simply not in your own interest to to plough the money into windmills when you're not even the ones that caused the problem in the first place so that is why that is why there is this whole different take from a very different starting point from the global south and finance and equity and responsibility are the key points about this. Thank you and I'm conscious we want to bring our colleagues in but I was interested to use in what you were saying about the the maths of the carbon offset not matching necessarily the land available globally and obviously that's quite a challenge and interesting from a Scottish perspective but I'd like to hear a bit more about that but conscious of time with the community's permission I think it would be helpful to maybe get some insight to to that reference that you made. Thank you yes well to give an example we as Action Aid looked at Shell's net zero climate target and on their pathway to net zero by 2050 they've given the details of what they plan to do in the next 10 years on their way to zero by 2050 but just by 2030 they would require land three times the size of the Netherlands which is ironic for a Dutch or once Dutch company they just actually changed a few weeks ago I declared they were moving to back to the UK but it was of course they're not planning to plant trees they're not planning to plant trees and do offsetting in the Netherlands they're not planning all the Netherlands neighbours they're planning to plant large amount of trees largely in the global north and we've seen with through the biofuels experience that happened between you know that really escalated between 2011 2007 and 2012 how a supposed climate solution really ended up putting a huge burden on land and a huge burden on small holder farmers women indigenous communities and replacing forests leading to hunger rising food prices displacement completely inequitable and completely impossible to achieve on a global scale and if you if you consider that the story of Shell is just one target net zero target out of all the thousands of net zero targets that are out there so many net zero targets are not claiming net zero by 2050 without undertaking the radical transformations needed now in these years and decades and relying very heavily on land assumptions or future technologies that they hope will come along and save them in the future but will probably never be possible so we should not be lulled into a false sense of security by all these net zero targets we really have to scrutinise them and say are they bringing about the transformation that we need and in the vast majority of cases thank you thanks very much for your net Monica Lennon please thank you convener i'm mindful of times i might just try and lump a few things into one question in please feel free to to respond to the parts that are most relevant to you i want to return to just transition and i refer to my register of interest as a member of unite the union and the gmb union at Glasgow we saw in a very public way the coming together of the climate strikers and environmentalists with with workers and with trade unions so i think that's a positive but in terms of where the public are it appears that people are believing the science and are following the science but from a workers point of view i think many people are still quite skeptical about the ability of politicians and governments to deliver a just transition because i've never really seen a just transition be delivered before so what needs to happen to to make that just transition happen mary you talked about strengthening the climate change plan and you talked about a credible roadmap i think jess touched on it a route map as well so from the conversations you've had with people at cop you know what are people looking to happen at a national level and just on this issue of greenwashing because i think we did see and hear a lot of that ahead of cop and even during it in the blue zone what can we do in terms of public and political education to be able to see greenwashing or understand it when we see it a bit like fake news and often we talk about education for children and young people in school but as a thread to run through you know all our life's lifelong how can we make sure that the public have the right tools to be properly engaged in the conversation and call out things like greenwashing when they see it and maybe start with mary first thanks monica for that and yeah i would also agree you know that was one of the really positive things that we saw in glasgow was that coming together of of you know the youth climate strikers the climate justice movement on the picket mines with you know the workers in really essential services and it's you know it's worth reminding ourselves that you know the the big strikes the key sort of or the high profile strikes that were happening during and ahead of the cop you know they were really around the delivery of essential services so the the refuse workers and the rail workers striking for decent pay and conditions you know for essential services and you know that these are a key part of the response to the climate crisis right so when you think about the need to shift to circular economy refuse workers and that waste infrastructure is absolutely key to delivering on the circular economy and of course the railways public transport is absolutely key to delivering on that shift away from the private car and to really tackle those you know that that's so far very difficult to tackle transport emissions i mean i think you touched on on the answers really in in your question in terms of what workers need to see to be convinced about the just transition and that is clear plans right it's clear plans it's timescales you know it's not just the workers that need to see that but it's also the industry that needs to see that clear plans and clear timescales they need to see investment they need to see policies right policies that are going to show how they will be supported out of one job out of one industry into another that show how their skills you know the skills that they already have will be transferred into the new green economy and you know it is worth reflecting that you know the past transitions the past energy transitions in this country largely have been unjust transitions you know probably nobody around the table needs reminding about you know the transition away from from coal and the damage that that's done and and you know that continues to do and be embedded in in many communities around scotland but then also looking to the more positive and you know thinking you know that this really can be done is looking actually at the oil and gas industry and remembering that you know in 1969 that was the first year that we drilled a single drop of oil from the north sea was 1969 and only 12 years later the UK was an exporter in gas and another three years after that we were one of the the world's top five exporters of oil and gas so within 15 years we went from drilling no oil and gas to being one of the top exporters and that's the kind of timescale that we need to move away from fossil fuels in in Scotland and in the UK and it can be done it has been done it just requires government intervention and and government planning and it requires public finance and you know on the point of finance you know where's the money going to come from from this well you just again have to look at the the fossil fuel industry and and all the subsidies that are going towards that they clearly need to be shifted away from fossil fuels and into the renewables industry and that's a wider green economy. Humiliam, come next to Theresa and then to Jace, thanks. Yeah and I fully agree with all of that and to say that on just transition I think a key of that will be inclusive processes as well to to involve people rather than just give them something which they feel doesn't address their multitude of needs. On the greenwashing well we just to experience just to relate what we saw at COP we saw many many announcements without really any quite a lot of these didn't have clear criteria but some of them were just like particularly on agriculture which I was following more closely we saw an announcement that 40 countries declare something on agriculture but there was no real standard or criteria so it was a huge mishmash of God knows what really without any paperwork to really understand what it was all about and then if you look closely some of these were really just industry trying desperately to stay relevant because they see the writing on the wall they see that the IPCC and the the special report on land and climate made it clear that we have to shift away from these systems towards you know agroecology and better systems that work for the planet so it was a desperate attempt to stay relevant without really any criteria or standards or exclusions on on what real action needs to look like so what we actually need to see to avoid greenwash could I could name a number of things for example criteria before these initiatives get launched and before everybody joins the club and has a chance to weaken it making sure that announcements are linked clearly to NDCs because we have no sense of what all these announcements meant in real terms of national action and what their contribution was to 1.5 also the offsets issue you know with all these net zero announcements given the minimal global capacity to really offset you know the limited amount of land that we have that's clear to for new tree plantations it is safer to assume that most offsets can't really be achieved or if one you know company manages to the others won't so easier to dismiss or just take as assumption that on and just actually require real transformation and another thing is to to consider we need more discussion about how to scale down things not just scaling up everything not just making bad things slightly better we really need to see how to take the things that are a problem out of the equation but do so in a fair and just way and so that's where the just transition thing links very closely to the green to the attempts to address greenwash thanks Teresa I just wondered Jess when you're giving your answer could you also reflect on your earlier or opening remarks about the public being energised and public expectations I'm just trying to think about what is the legacy of COP26 for people here in Scotland so interested to hear your thoughts okay I remember to cover all that so on on just transition I would agree with all the previous comments and also acknowledge that need for participation and you know at whatever level whether that's it you know thinking about a whole sector or a community level people need to be engaged and involved in that process and sometimes we're worried that that might slow the pace down when we urgently need to be making progress but actually our experience is that once people feel confident and engaged in a process that they trust that actually that can accelerate at the process and bring with it a momentum and an energy that also importantly delivers an outcome that is workable for people rather than something which was signed centrally and sort of put to people so that engagement I think the important word there is shift about you know these things have to be financed whether it's an energy shifting to clean energy or in transport that shift has to happen and that's one of the areas which I hear constantly about people you know the kinds of they want to be doing their bit but they need that system change and they're frustrated because they see that the system is still favouring the old story rather than the new story and that shift needs to happen and it needs to open you know in order to see that happen we need to open things up and be constantly scrutinising whether it's not happening or not happening you know is that ambition being translated into the national planning framework or into the strategic planning on transport for example and if it's not then people lose hope and they also lose their own engagement with that being part of that transition. Greenwashing interestingly one thing which I think we've just seen the start of through COP is some unpacking of those previously you know solutions that you know CCS for example hydrogen we talk a lot about hydrogen without necessarily distinguishing the different types of hydrogen and where before COP we were hearing a lot of questions about hydrogen you know within community conversations what what does it mean what you know I don't feel knowledgeable about what the differences are what the choices are there where can it be used where can't it be used and actually once that's unpacked people feel a lot more confident in their own knowledge and informs them in terms of what they are listening to whether they're talking about green hydrogen or blue hydrogen or what the different implications are for all of those. Interestingly I wouldn't like at all to give the impression that communities are not informed but obviously if you're based on a scale and people always want more information to inform their own contributions and their own actions and their own lives and also you know the you know people are anxious of course because they're seeing impacts but they also care about the impacts which are coming quickly to to others as well. So that information that access to understanding what is going on is so part of the contribution towards these climate conversations and communities has been through the climate reality project where you get a summary of what the climate science impacts and the solutions are and these are global sort of the snapshots of some of the solutions and once people hear that stuff and put together join the dots between their own knowledge of what is going on in terms of the science and the impacts and what the solutions might be just hear a confidence and a knowledge in the discussions that then folk just take on for themselves and there's something in that that I think we need to harness as a nation where everybody has access to the information and the resources that they need in order to inform their own conversations rather than having to you know pick and choose and work out what to believe or what to trust. So and actually once you once folk have that conversation going on themselves just to bring in that energy and momentum they bring that energy and momentum in their own lives and their own experiences whether they're in health or education or wherever and it can actually fuel a really valuable dialogue for example with local government where people can be saying right this is what we want to be doing we do want to make that switch from our cards to public transport and active travel but we're feeling we can't do that because we don't have a safe route to cycle between our communities for example and then they can start to have a really meaningful conversation with local government public bodies and what we hear from local government is that they really value that because it's not a sort of finger waving exercise at each other it's a dialogue which is actually producing a route map to how they can be delivering change and so yeah that's I think a real potential there to bring people what they need and harness that energy and we could take that momentum that we've really accelerated through hosting COP26 and apply it in that way but communities in that same participation way as I talked about with the just transition need to be brought into the conversation and at the moment what we're not hearing very well is first-hand experience from people across communities and not just those who you'd expect to hear from from all communities going to them hearing what their experiences are what their needs are what their challenges are and bringing that to the heart of the conversation and that that could be an area where the Parliament could really help ensure that happens. Thank you to our panel. Thanks very much Monica let me bring in Jackie Dunbar please. I'll be brief convener because I'm conscious of the time. Can I ask each one of the panel what is the one thing that you think the Scottish Parliament should be doing and what expert advice do you think we should also be tapping into? Can I go to Jess first please because I think you've just touched on that briefly if I'm reading your mind Jess. I think and I referred to previous comments about keeping this conversation going and also perhaps pick up on Dave Ray's comments about the fact that it holds a landing on one committee but Parliament as a whole needs to keep this conversation going and scrutiny of budgets and public spend ensuring everything across all committees whether it's in health and education or wherever it is is in line with tackling the climate and the nature emergency and I could reel off a list of things which we've talked about over 20 years probably about what people would like to see but that mainstreams that, that really brings that to the heart of everything that we do because people can then trust and look to that process to that structure in the building which is bringing the conversation back to the people which I think could be really valuable and bringing in all those you know that would bring the openness and transparency accountability and participation that are obviously going to be so key to to making progress which we will refer to elsewhere. Okay thank you can we go to Mary please? Yes thanks I think the one thing that this committee could be doing is really doing the job that it's predecessor committee set out back in the spring and you know really holding the government to account on the climate change plan update the missed targets so you know we saw the um there were 166 points that your predecessor committee flagged up as as wanting to be addressed in in terms of the climate change plan update and also um you know the the committee asked for a credible plan B right away from this sort of over reliance on negative emissions technologies that we we saw in in the climate change plan update so you know not just going for the residual emissions being captured by by ccs but you know one fifth by 20 quarter by 2032 and you know those dates don't align with industry projections of when when that technology would come on stream and obviously we we have serious reservations about whether that technology will ever come on stream but even the industry isn't claiming to you know be able to mop up that amount within that timescale so really this committee needs to be holding the government to account on on those points flagged back in spring we've we've also seen the recent section 36 update plan um which was a response to um the missed target um and i think that has been laid before parliament as per um the the regulations i don't think there's a requirement for this committee or any committee to scrutinise it but i think it would be strongly advisable for um this committee to do so so it's a you know it's a 15 page it's not a very long um report um it's um you know there's a there's some positive things in there mostly that are taken from the the manifesto uh the co-operation agreement and the programme for government and a couple of new extra things on top of that but there are no numbers in that update report so it's very hard to tell whether um it's credible so i think you know it'd be great if you could you know have a look at the report get the minister in front of you and and ask some difficult questions uh of that um in terms of who else you should be listening to you know what other expert advice i mean there are lots of experts out there i think um you know review listening to what civil society are saying would be um you know useful for this committee so i you know i've mentioned once or twice the the work of um the civil society review that's available we can we can forward you um those reports if that would also you know tune in um you know the work that the cop cop 26 coalition uh did around the Glasgow summit uh you know we ran over the course of the two years we ran several um people summit um online ahead of the cop we ran a hybrid in person and and online um people summit during the cop and many of those sessions were captured and and recorded and you know what people were discussing you know the impacts of the climate crisis but also the solutions um to the climate crisis in in many of those sessions and they you know i think you could learn a lot from going back to those sessions and and tuning in and and listening both in terms of what we need to do and also just in terms of you know the real public appetite for change and the real anger you know the sense that you know that's very fine expand a bit but in that sense of you know perhaps you know i and we as friends of the earth haven't come across as very hopeful in terms of the outcome of cop 26 but actually where we do or hope from is is in this really powerful um you know movement of movements that we've that we've helped to instigate but that we've seen growing um you know beyond um beyond our our hopes for that and you know that's going to continue um to act together and and to hold um decision makers to account until we until we get the change that we we need do we have time to go to Theresa come in vino very briefly thank you very much um so i'm quite heartened by the real willingness of this committee to be a world leader and to push itself and the world um and so to take forward the the you know the movement already shown by scotland on on loss and damage finance and just transition these are really key so continue to push the boat on these because um because they've proven very helpful in the global conversation but also asking the right conversations on on what is not being asked you know so initiating conversations possibly a task force for real transformation you know what is a fair share of 1.5 and how to really get there what is really required that can spark and inspire the world and you know maybe make a real difference on getting the planet on track maybe even a task force to look at how money is being spent and where it could be better spent these are real issues that are still nowhere in the conversation and yet are essential to it thank you very much Jackie that brings us to the end of our allotted time and let me thank our guests for joining us today it was a very interesting panel thank you for your insights in relation to the outcomes of coq 26 and the wide range of other issues you brought to our attention um and enjoyed the rest of your day thank you very much and that brings us to the end of the public session