 like to pass to our Chair, Lord Dieben, to comment on what is actually his final progress report to Scotland in his role as Chair of the CCC. So, yes, Lord Dieben. Well, thank you very much. I've rather been pleased over the past years that we've been able to be complementary to Scotland and a number of the things that the Scots have sought to do. But I'm afraid this year we really do have to be very clear that the Scottish government lacks a clear delivery plan. It does not give any explanation as to how it can meet the targets which it has set through the Scottish Parliament. And we have to say that in almost every way, instead of leading the United Kingdom, which it did for some time, it's now very much in the same position as the Westminster government. This is not what Scotland wants and it isn't what Scotland hope to do. And it isn't possible to say that this is because of the areas in which Scotland doesn't have authority. Because some of the areas where it is failing most are the areas which are entirely devolved. And it is also true that in some of the areas in which there is greater success, they are the areas which are controlled from Westminster. So this is a report for Scotland and it is addressed to Scotland. We are proud to be advising the Scottish government. We are proud that the Scottish people have accepted a tough series of targets. We want to be proud of the delivery. And that's why we have been so direct and clear. It's because we want Scotland to succeed. Because without the success of Scotland, the United Kingdom won't succeed and without the United Kingdom succeeding and leading, then the world is not going to do what it needs to do to stave off disaster. We are in the last moments of being able to save the planet from the worst effects of climate change. And so this is a trumpet call to Scotland to resume its leadership and to ensure that we reach the end which we all devoutly demand. Keith. Thank you very much. Yes, I couldn't be clearer really about the need for action and the kinds of action and the progress that we've seen over the last year. Emily Nurse will now talk us through in a short presentation and give us some of the sort of facts and figures. Okay, over to you Emily. Thank you very much. Okay, let me, there we go. Okay, I hope you can see the slide as well. All right, so yeah, I am going to talk you through the two reports that we have launched today. And I'll do them in turn. So starting with our review, first five-year review of Scotland's emissions targets and then go on to our annual progress report to Scotland on progress in reducing emissions. Before I dive into those, I just want to give a bit of context here and talk through what Scotland's emissions targets are. So Scotland is committed to reach net zero by 2045. There's also an interim target to reduce emissions by 90% on levels in 1990 by 2040 and by 75% by 2030. And then there are annual targets within those that are just set via a straight line between those interim targets. Now, Scottish Parliament chose these targets after advice that we gave them in 2019. Now, the 2040 and the net zero targets were in line with the advice that we gave. However, the 75% target in 2030 goes significantly beyond what we advised at the time. So that was a choice that was made by Scottish Parliament to have greater ambition in the near term. And just putting the targets in context globally, they are at the upper end of ambition that is needed in the IPCCC's 1.5 degree consistent scenario. So they are really ambitious targets. And as I said, the later ones in line with our advice, but the one in 2030 does go significantly beyond. Okay. So moving on to our first report. So let me just talk a bit about why. Why are we reviewing these targets that were already set by Scottish Parliament? So emissions accounting methods change each year. So they are emissions accounting comes from the greenhouse gas inventory. The methodology used in the inventory is updated each year. The scope can change or the way that things are calculated can be adjusted. Now, Scotland is particularly susceptible to changes in greenhouse gas accounting. It has a large contribution from the land use sector in emissions, which is quite an uncertain sector, and there are quite frequent changes in scope or in the way things are measured. So we don't want the targets to become, you know, harder to achieve, for example, just because accounting methodologies have changed. So because of this, targets are assessed against a frozen version of the inventory that gets reset every five years. And this is called, we call it a greenhouse gas account. And next year it will be reset. So it gets reset every five years to the latest methodology because we don't want to get really far behind in what the most up to date methods are, but it protects to these sort of fluctuations that happen year to year. So when we, when the methodology is reset, we have to relook at these targets and say, well, are they still achievable given that the accounting methodology has changed or have there been significant changes to the achievability given accounting methodologies have changed. So we're reviewing those targets. And our principle is only to recommend a reduction in ambition if the methodology changes significantly affect the feasibility of the targets. These targets were chosen by Scottish Parliament. So we're not talking about how difficult they are in the first place, but whether these changes mean that they become even more difficult, then we could potentially recommend reducing ambition. Okay, so let's dive into it. So this chart here, that the bottom line here shows what the legislated targets are. And then what we're comparing to in the line above is what the targets are when they're adjusted to the latest accounting methodology. So you can see that there's very little change. And the reason for that is this is method that the targets were the advice that from what we gave our, the methodology that was used when we gave our advice was was is four years old. However, at the time, we did use a, this is quite a big but we included a forward looking estimate of the largest change that has since occurred. And that is a significant increase in the scope of emissions from Peatlands. So because we included that in our advice at the time, we did a forward looking estimate of that. That doesn't count as a change in methodology because that was already accounted for when we gave our advice. And the other changes that have occurred since then are relatively minor and don't sort of meet it to big differences in the achievability. So our conclusion is that changes in methodology do not imply the need to change the net zero and 2030 and 2040 interim targets. There is however a bit of a complication for the annual targets in the 2020s. Now the reason for this is that the 2020 target was based on advice, earlier advice using older methodology and it did not include this forward looking estimate of Peatland emissions. Now the 2020 target is in the past. It's actually already been achieved and I'll talk about that in a moment. So we wouldn't normally be talking about what you know changing a target that's passed. However, because of the way the annual targets are set, they're set by a sort of line in between the interim targets, they are significantly affected by the level of the 2020 target. Now given that the 2020 target actually when you sort of shift it onto the new basis as I've shown here in orange, does that does change significantly. What we are advising is that we set the annual targets by drawing a straight line between this adjusted, effective, adjusted 2020 target. And that will, without doing that, the annual targets will be really difficult to achieve. They're difficult to achieve anyway, but because of the changing methodology that's coming next year, they will become even more difficult to achieve. And I'll show some more on that later. Okay, looking at this now from a slightly different perspective, so far I've just talked about how have methodology, the methodologies changed. And what I'm showing here is actually our an updated pathway from the CCC for Scotland and that's shown in red. There's a range there. And that range is coming from a range of possibilities for engineered greenhouse gas removals. And what we've done here is we've started from our advice, 2020 advice from our six carbon budget analysis, we've done some technical adjustments to get things up to date. And we have also looked at increasing ambitious ambition in some sectors, because we recognise Scottish Parliament wants to go faster. So we've looked at increasing ambition in the sectors where we think there are significant enough devolved powers to do so. And this is what we get and we're comparing it now to the targets of the legislative targets here in blue. And you can see there is a really big gap here. And even in the ones that we're just recommending where there's sort of these in green here, so these sort of adjusted annual targets, there's still quite a big gap especially out here in 2030. The black diamond there for context tells us what emissions actually were in 2020. So you can see them on the new basis, the targets are starting essentially in the wrong place. So what you see is that there is less of a reduction in our pathway. However, as we get into the late 2030s, it does look like it may be possible. And there are a lot of uncertainties here, but it may be possible to go even further than the ambitious targets that Scotland has. However, we really have to consider the fact that if these targets are missed in the 2020s and early 2030s, they do have to be compensated for later on. So the amount that they're missed by has to be caught up in the later years. So if these are missed here, it does actually make the sort of targets out here more challenging. So our pathway suggests that 65 to 67% reduction by 2030 would be a feasible way to go. And just to remind you, the legislative target is 75% by 2030. So we have a gap in emissions of about 7 to 8 megatons that our pathway doesn't sort of say how it would get there. What Scottish Government really needs to do now is show how this target is going to be achieved in a quantified way and sort of add up all the different policies and so on to see how this is going to be achieved. Okay, so I'm going to move on now to our second report, which is our annual progress report on how Scotland is doing in reducing emissions. Okay, so this chart here shows emissions in Scotland. Just to say that emissions have halved in Scotland approximately in the last 30 years since the base year of 1990. And they will need to approximately halve again in the next 10. So it really think things need to speed up. And as I'll show later what's happened so far has been predominantly in the electricity supply sector and this now needs to spread across to all sectors. Focusing a bit more on what's happened recently, in 2020 emissions fell 12% compared to 2019. This is largely due to the effects of the pandemic and I'll show this in a moment. So largely the travel restrictions. And just for context in the decade before that, emissions fell about 2% or 3% on average. So it's a much bigger reduction due to the pandemic. I'm now going to complicate this chart a little bit by putting on the dashed line here which shows the emissions based on this frozen account, this frozen methodology that I talked about. So the methodology from five years ago where you can see emissions are lower. This is largely because the people and the scope of the people and the emissions has been increased. So if we look at that based on the greenhouse gas account, which is what was used to check if the 2020 target was achieved, you can see that the target here showing in red because the dashed line is below, the black dashed line is below, then the target was achieved. However, we've also had a look at what the impact, how much of that is from the reduction in transport emissions which came from the lockdown restrictions. And if we remove that effect, if we remove the reduction from transport, we get this circle here which then goes above the target. So this tells us if we hadn't had that big reduction in transport, then this target would not have been achieved. And I should also say that although this target was achieved, seven out of 11 of Scotland's targets have been missed since 2010. So diving in a bit deeper into what happened in the last year across the sectors, so as I already said, transport saw the largest reduction, so minus 26% in emissions. There are some other reductions in other sectors. The one in industry was also driven by sort of a demand reduction due to the pandemic. But there are some real reductions seen in some of the other sectors. But they're just obviously not as large as this big, as these big reductions we saw due to COVID. And just to compare with the sort of a longer view, this is the average annual change in the decade before the pandemic. And you can see that although there were significant reductions in the electricity supply sector, the other sectors saw less of a reduction. So waste also saw a reasonably big reduction over this time. But as a smaller sector, it's less of a reduction. Okay, so let's look forwards. I've shown the historical emissions, and this is showing it again here in black. What we've done here is we've projected how we think emissions may rise in 2021. This is based on if they go up in the same amount that they went up in the UK as a whole. So this is an estimate. But we are expecting them to go up as we were about, as Scotland will have abounded obviously from the pandemic in 2021. And this in red shows what the current targets currently are. And you can see there's a big gap here where Scotland needs to get in order to reach these targets. And as well as this sort of gap right at the beginning, there's a real steep fall. So as I said, emissions need to halve by 2030. So a lot needs to happen. I've also put in here the recommended targets. So the targets that we recommended due to this methodology change that affected the annual targets in the 2020 that I talked about. So you can see that even with that, obviously that makes things a bit more feasible in the early 2020s. But there's still a lot to do and there's a lot to do fast. So let's have a look at that across the sectors. And here what I'm doing is comparing historical emissions for each of the sectors from 2008. And then comparing that to the plans that Scotland laid out in its update to the climate change plan. So, I mean, you can see that basically emissions need to fall across the board. There's a couple of things I want to point out from this. So there's a lot going on in this chart, but you can see as we've already said, electricity supply emissions are the ones that have really driven historical emissions so far. So huge decreases there. There are some decreases in other sectors, but generally much, much less. And this really needs to speed up. And I want to pick up some particular points there in transport. Emissions in the last decade have fallen a few percent only. They need to half in the next decade. So, you know, a real sort of step change there. In buildings, about a six percent reduction in the last decade, emissions need to reduce by 70 percent in the next decade. You can see how it just changes suddenly. Things really, really, really need to ramp up. Another thing I wanted to point out was this removal, engineered removal sector here where we have nothing now, but the Scottish plans really rely on a lot happening there. So you can see it suddenly jumps out to be quite a high level by 2030. And in fact, these plans assume that two-thirds of the UK stated ambition in 2030 will be in Scotland. So there's a heavy reliance there and really a steep reduction that needs to be seen across the board. Okay, so I've talked about emissions reduction and sort of shown that, you know, although the target was reached in 2020, things are generally off track. A lot of other targets have been missed and the target this year was reached because of the pandemic primarily. I'm now going to move on to talk about policy progress and we're shifting how we assess things by as much as possible looking at quantified indicators of progress. So Scotland's update to its climate change plan was published two years ago and there have been some positive steps taken since then, such as planning for heat networks and funding for local authorities to increase charging networks and so on. And there's a welcome focus on a fair and a just transition in Scotland's plans. However, our overall assessment is that policy progress is not sufficient for the rapid emissions reduction that is required in the next decade. I showed in the last slide a lot needs to happen and it's not sufficient to get things on track and a lot of our indicators of progress and I'll go through some of the some examples are showing that things are not going at the required rate. Some sectors are making progress although, as I said, not fast enough and then others are actually really lagging for example, agriculture which is missing a detailed plan for low carbon farming. Okay, so I'm going to dive in now to a bit of detail and show you one of our indicators in the transport sector. So this shows electric car sales in Scotland. So things are increasing. So this is good and the bar chart shows the battery electric vehicles in blue and then in this sort of other mode colour plug-in hybrid electric vehicles both are increasing especially the battery electric vehicles. The orange line shows Scotland's market share for all electric vehicles as a percentage. So in 2021 was just above 12%. This is increasing fast but what you can see is it's not increasing fast enough. Scotland needs to decarbonise transport really, really fast. We're comparing here with this diamond here with a benchmark in our most ambitious scenario. Scotland needs to go faster than that as I've already shown, our pathway doesn't reach the 2030 target. Scotland needs to go even faster than that in all the sectors. And so what you can see is that things are not going fast enough for that and also compared to the UK as a whole things are not going as fast as the UK as a whole. I'm going to stick with transport now and talk about an aim that Scotland has in its plans of reducing car kilometres by 20% on the levels that they were in 2019 by 2030. This is a really ambitious aim. It's something that we are watching closely because it's actually, it would be a great thing to achieve. So obviously the climate effects are clear, the benefits are clear. You also get co-benefits in terms of cleaner air quality, less congestion, more active travel, so the health benefits from that. But it is really, really quite a challenging thing to achieve. This chart here shows the car kilometres and billion kilometres in Scotland that are increasing. There was obviously a dip here during the lockdowns, but they're already rebounding and this is 2021 and this year will have rebounded even more. And this is the target here. So this sort of rebound needs to reverse really quickly. We're talking about really rapid change that needs to happen here. And what we're not, what we don't have is a full strategy that tackles things from all angles. So it also deferred making private car use, yet less appealing, for example. And it really, it needs to happen right now. If we're going to get to this sort of level in 2030, changes need to be happening right now. Okay, I'm going to switch sectors now and talk about land use. As I already mentioned, a really important sector in Scotland. So Scottish afforestation rates have generally been higher than the rest of the UK combined, in fact, for the most part. So what we can start here shows New Woodland planting in Scotland since 1990 as the blue bars. And it's compared to England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the other bars. So what you can see is that sort of generally they have been higher than the rest of the UK. They have been some dips and so on. Things have increased, but then started to plateau again more recently. And what I want to do here is just compare to the target that Scotland has of 18 kilo hectares by 2025. And you can see the sort of scale of change that's needed. We really need to ramp up fast. And in order to do that barriers need to be addressed such as skills shortages and nursery capacity and so on. So you see, although things are sort of generally been sort of historically quite good in this area, it just needs to ramp up fast. And now switching to Peatland, they're still in the land use sector. This is Peatland area under restoration. So this is an example where, although this here shows historical restoration areas which have just started to increase, they have started to increase, but they've consistently been missing their own target shown here in orange by a long way. And this is something that really needs to be tackled. And I should also point out that this is Scotland's target. This is the target right up here at 45 collectors that we have in our scenario. So we believe that they could go even further than their own target, which is not being met. This is something that really needs to be tackled. And again, this sort of barriers to ramping up the scale need to be addressed. Okay, so I've gone into a bit of detail to some of the indicators and this here now is a bit of a summary. These indicators are generally sort of checking how Scotland is doing towards some of the milestones that it has set out in terms of how it wants to reach these emissions reductions targets. So these milestones actually generally have really quite high ambition. So sort of matched with the high ambition on emissions reductions targets, we have these milestones that generally have high ambition. So we don't talk about the few that don't, but that generally do. The issue is that we're not seeing the progress that's needed at the moment in order to get to them. So I already talked about the sales of electric vehicles. So there's a milestone of no new fossil fuel cars by 2030 high ambition, but at the moment slightly off track for that. There's 20% reduction in car kilometres, as I already said, really, really high ambition, but we haven't seen progress in reducing. We haven't actually seen this happening yet in the sort of car kilometres that we're seeing. Aviation demand I didn't talk about yet. Here there is actually is no ambition. So there's no ambition to limit the growth of aviation. So they can't be on or off track because there's no ambition there, but we really think this is the missing opportunity here, given the challenges that Scotland has to meet the targets. This is something that should also be addressed. In buildings, there's high ambition for low carbon heat, 1.2 million homes with low carbon heating by 2030. That's about four years faster than our pathway. So really high ambition there. It's a bit early to say whether that's going to be, whether that's going okay, given we have a bit of a lack of data as well in this sector, but really things need to ramp up fast. Energy efficiency also high ambition there. I already talked about aforestation and peatland restoration, and the peatland restoration is another one where we think ambition can also be increased. And then recycling rates again, high ambition, but significantly off track for those. So these we focused here on the sectors where Scotland really has a good amount of devolved powers for the policy, so it can really drive things forward. There is also a higher alliance, as I mentioned before on engineered removals and industry as a second highest emitting sector, and these have a lot of reserve policy powers. So of course, cooperation with the UK government is key for those two. Okay, I want to wrap up my presentation with just a bit of an overview of our assessment of Scotland's decarbonisation plans. So a good decarbonisation plan has a number of steps that I'll talk with you today. We've got the emissions targets at the top that need to be set. These milestones that I've already talked about, such as phasing out fossil fuel cars, et cetera, they all need to sort of be hit in order to reach the emissions targets. Underlying them, we have enablers that need to happen to make sure these happen, such as charging infrastructure, public perceptions, et cetera. And then of course, the foundation of all of this is a set of really good policies that ensure that all of this is going to happen. And then what we need, and this is something that you have to have in order to sort of make this all work inside together, is a quantified delivery plan that tells us, we've got these policies. How do they add up to get us to achieve these enablers that we need and then to meet these milestones that we've set? And then how do these milestones and policies all combine to give us the emissions reductions that we need to hit our targets? And this all needs to be quantified so we can see, is this enough? Do we need to go further? And what we actually see is that this part of it is missing. We don't have this sort of link up, this quantified link up between all these things, this ambition that's been stated and some levels of policies that have been announced and how they all add up and whether it's sufficient to reach the targets that have been set. So what we've asked is for the Scottish government to provide this area, we need to quite urgently actually provide to us something that says how they're going to reach these in a quantified way. I've already said that these emissions targets are very ambitious. The milestones actually are generally ambitious. There's some things that aren't like aviation demand, for example, but generally ambitious. But what I've shown is that they are mostly off track, at least for the rate that needs to happen for these ambitious targets. And the sort of policies in place underneath there, we don't think that there's sufficient progress for the amount of scale up that is needed to happen now. So what we really want to see going forward is action right now. We want to see the required progress in our indicators and we want to see emissions coming down across in all sectors. And we need to see that happening now. Okay, so that's it from me. I'm just going to pass over to Chris now for a few words. Great, thank you very much, Emily. And thanks to everyone for joining us this morning. We've got some good numbers actually watching on YouTube and on Zoom. I'm just going to close off with a few comments before we go to the Q&A, which Mandy Rhodes has very kindly agreed to host for us. And I suppose I wanted to just reflect that in one sense this is a special moment, I suppose, for Scotland. We've reached halfway to the net zero goal. The Climate Change Act requires us to monitor emissions from where they stood back in 1990. And in this report, in this year, we are reflecting on Scottish data from 2020. So 2020 is the first full year of emissions, as you've just heard, where Scotland reached that kind of landmark 50% reduction. And I think we should be pleased about that because of course we understand more and more the wider benefits of net zero, which go way beyond climate every year we look at it, we understand that more and more. But I'm afraid it is a hollow celebration because it's a pandemic effect. It was the curtailment of Scotland's travel over the pandemic that brought us to that magic 50. All the signs are sadly that it is a temporary fall. And that brings us to what happens next, I suppose. And just to make the point, for those of you who followed some of the coverage today of the report in the news, it's quite right to say that this is the strongest criticism that we've ever offered to the Scottish government. We have done that deliberately. Why have we done that? Well, it's because we think we are running out of time. Just as John said at the top of our call this morning, it's because we are not sure that Scottish ministers are really hearing the messages that we have been passing to them pretty consistently now over the recent years. We may well have gone halfway to net zero in this year's data, but we are certainly not confident at all that Scotland is on track to make the kind of systemic shifts that would be necessary for the next half. We do see some new welcome policies. There is new policy there. Program for government each year does contain climate policies, which are always welcome, of course. But bluntly, it's just not nearly enough. It's not at that kind of scale that we would need to see to believe that Scotland would be on track. So I worry that we are now seeing the collective impact of what you might call magical thinking in the Scottish government. We have published ambitions from Scottish ministers to reduce emissions in every sector of the Scottish economy. Those haven't been updated for a couple of years. We don't really have any sense now of how policy is going to meet those kind of ambitions. We are promised new pathways next year. But you could put it another way. The Scottish climate strategy at the moment does appear to live in a model rather than in the real world. So we wanted to shine a light on that. And let me just give you one further chart this morning. We like a chart in the CCC. So an example perhaps of that magical thinking. Just to go back to that 20% car kilometre reduction target, which would be game changing if Scotland could achieve it. A really genuinely transformative target for a host of reasons, not just for climate. Here what we've done is convert that 20% target to the annual reduction that would be required in car kilometres about 3% each year. And showing you that against some evidence from past experience of policies and approaches and modelling to get to a reduction in car demand. Just to be clear, Scottish car miles are currently growing. So we would need to match to achieve that 20% car kilometre reduction target. We'd need to match the best ever year for demand reduction in Scotland. That is a year where we had the recession impacts after the financial crisis. We'd need to beat the impacts of London's congestion charge, one of the most controversial and well thought through policies in transport of the last 20 or 30 years. And we'd need to do that in Scotland consistently for the rest of this decade. Now, you tell me, is that likely to happen? Is it likely to happen without similar policy of similar scale across Scotland? Are we doing the preparation for that kind of policy in Scotland at the moment? The answer to that is no. So just coming back to the overall challenge, just to wrap up, and Emily, perhaps you can move on to the last slide for this one. Scotland certainly does have some of the most stretching targets in the world actually for reducing emissions for tackling climate change. That 2030 goal to cut emissions by 75% requires us to have emissions again by 2030. It took us 30 years to do the first half. We need to have them again over the next decade. Ambition like that is genuinely great, but it's only great if we can actually deliver it. We do need ambition, but I think the point for congratulations on ambitious target setting has long since passed. We need to face the reality that Scotland is now off track. It's off track for net zero by 2045. It's way off track for the 2030 goal. And those goals are law. So I'm afraid that we are in danger of having a Scottish Climate Change Act that has lost its integrity. And that's the message that we'll be bringing to parliamentarians next week when we give evidence there, actually it's the week after. And I really want to make this point that the act only means something if we actually deliver policies to achieve those targets. And if that hasn't got your attention, then I just maybe end on this point. Look what happened this summer in the High Court in London at the peak of the heat wave. We had a judge ruling that the UK government strategy for net zero under the UK Climate Change Act, which is the mirror of the Scottish Act, was illegal. So we now have in the UK the first ever successful legal case against a government, happens to be the UK government, on the legality of their plans under the Climate Change Act. This is serious stuff. So we have legislation now in the UK that bites, but I'm afraid we have plans particularly in Scotland that lack bite. And that feels like the appropriate point to hand over to Mandy who's going to chair our Q&A this morning for you, Mandy, this morning. But I'll hand over to you now. Thank you, Chris. You're certainly living up to your surname. It is a really stark assessment you've made, but to accuse the Scottish Government of magical thinking. I mean, did they just set themselves up for failure by having far too much ambition? Well, I mean, I tend to think they did actually. I mean, I think that the setting of the target wasn't accompanied by, you know, deep thinking on the kind of policies that would be necessary to meet it. And I think these two things need to go in lock steps. So, you know, we could look back at that period. There was an enormous piece of analysis on the technical requirements of net zero done by my team in the CCC and the recommendations we gave for setting a net zero goal were swiftly adopted by Nicola Surgeon in 2019. She was the first of the leaders across the UK to respond to that report. And we were delighted at the time. But we also said at the time, listen, we need to think carefully in the CCC about the pathway to that target. We're absolutely sure that we know that the end state is something that could be done. But we should think carefully about, you know, the pathway to it. At that point, Scottish politics picked up the baton and decided it wanted extra ambition beyond even that kind of straight line that we drew for the Scottish Government to net zero. And in particular, that it wanted to do more over this decade to 2030. Now, it's hard to criticise that kind of ambition because, you know, that's what we need. You know, the more that you do early, the better the outcomes for the climate. So we were, you know, pleased to see that kind of ambition from Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. But it didn't then flow into the kind of ambitious, deep thought process and discussion that needs to take place across Scottish society about how you achieve a target like that. And it's interesting to see that, you know, we need a combination of policies in Scotland and UK. We need some aspects of the UK transition now to happen more quickly in Scotland if Scotland is to meet its 2030 goal. And we haven't seen, coming to a political point, much effort really to kind of create the cooperative mechanisms that you would need across the UK to put policies in place to meet that. So I'm afraid we see failure across the board. There are lots of areas where new policy has come through. You know, we saw as late as Friday night that Patrick Harvey was announcing really worthwhile policies on heat pump installations and support for people who want to do that and home insulation. But even then, it's quite interesting, those kind of policies have a seemingly big, you know, a big price tag on them. When you look at how much money is actually going into it, it might pay for four or 5,000 properties across Scotland. It is not in the millions. We are not talking of, you know, the appropriate scales. So it just feels to us that the targets are sort of losing their grip over the policy process that we need to have some sense really of what it is the Scottish government is actually trying to achieve and some sense of what policies it's actually going to bring about instead of kind of promising jam tomorrow. Rosh, imagine politics interfering with policy change. Just before I turn to the others and some of the questions that are coming in, you mentioned the Greens. So, you know, in the year that we're looking back on, if you like, we've had both COP26, so the eyes of the world were on Scotland particularly, but also we've got Greens in government now. Does that make it doubly more disappointing, if you like, that we haven't made the progress that you would have wanted to see? Well, I think it does, actually. I mean, I, you know, it's not our job to comment on politics, but I think we can comment on what the government is delivering. And I mean, I suspect venturing into the political commentary now, that I suspect that bringing the Greens into government was in part at least to kind of shake up the process around the kind of policies that you might need for net zero and for climate and for wider environmental objectives. That's certainly the way that the First Minister talked about it, but it hasn't had that kind of effect. If anything, we've seen quite a difficult set of processes put in place across the Scottish government that if they haven't anything looking from the outside in, have slowed the policy process rather than accelerated it. So maybe we will see the payoff from having, you know, a greener set of voices within the government. I kind of hope that we will. You know, I think there's all sorts of reasons to want to do net zero beyond just the green stuff. So it shouldn't just be the Greens pushing it, but we are not seeing, I'm afraid, the kind of shift in emphasis and the scale at the scale that's required to meet those goals, which is worth saying the Greens were the primary force in setting that 2030 target in what was essentially a political process to arrive at that really ambitious goal for this decade. So, you know, you would hope that they're going to come in now with some solid ideas about how you actually implement policies to hit it. Emily, one of the most depressing, there was much to be depressed about, but one of the most depressing screenshots was the one that showed the progress or lack of progress, which kind of highlighted the red and the orange, where there was a significant lack of progress. We've all been through very, very difficult times, straightened times. We've got climate crisis, but we've also got a cost of living crisis and an energy crisis. Why is Scotland any different to the rest of the UK? Why is our progress stalled compared with the rest of the UK? So I think part of the reason that actually things look so red for Scotland is that Scotland has got these really, really ambitious targets and milestones and needs to go a lot faster in order to meet them. So in some cases, we saw, you know, there is progress, for example, in electric vehicle sales, right? They are going up and there is also progress, and I didn't show this one, but in charging infrastructure in Scotland. And that's going well, but the problem is that it needs to go so, so fast in order to hit these targets that it's still going to be off track. So we're still going to see things as orange and red and so on. In other cases, you know, so for example, energy efficiency, and this is something given the cost of living and energy crisis needs to be happening even faster. This is off track in the UK also, and in Scotland it's off track across the way. Something like peatland restoration, particularly important in Scotland because there's a lot of peatland in Scotland. This one just, you know, consistently missing their own targets and really by quite a long way, really, really needs to ramp up. So I think, you know, it's a bit of a mixture, but part of it is coming from the fact that they really just need to move so fast. And I think on the three areas that you specifically talked about, so housing, transport and land use and farming, to be very clear, these are devolved areas where the Scottish government has the power to make the changes that you would like to see happen. So that's why we sort of focused on these ones in this table and more so in the report. Yeah, we sort of, you know, Scotland has set targets that go beyond the UK in the short term, so in the 20, you know, in the 2030s it's going further than the UK is. So of course that needs to be practical. It needs to be done in a way that Scotland has powers for. So we're really focusing on those sectors. Yeah, so there are some things within there that aren't completely devolved to Scotland. So, you know, for example, the sort of ban on the sales of fossil fuel boilers, for example, but what Scotland needs to do then is just really ramp up the uptake of that with funding and support and so on. So yeah, we've picked those ones to really focus in on where we think Scotland can use its devolved powers. In terms of housing in particular, is it the Scottish government's fault though that they perhaps inherited a very poor housing stock? I mean, housing is tricky. There's sort of no way around it. It is difficult to do, but we just don't think that there's enough being done. Like more can be done and it needs to happen much faster. We've seen, and in the UK wide as well, we've seen that actually in the past, you know, insulation rates have been a lot higher and then they've just sort of plateaued off. So and just nose died down in fact. So certainly more could be done there, although it is certainly tricky. Keith, this question come up a number of questions on this actually and I had one of my own about the pandemic and I'm trying to find silver linings if you can in anything. And obviously our behavioural change was dramatic during the pandemic and we see that in the transport and transport. Do you think we can take any other lessons from the pandemic and apply it to what we need to do? I think that major lesson is that it is possible to change behaviour. I mean, quite a lot of commentary and sort of discussion suggests that people can only do and carry on doing what we do now. That things like, you know, changes to diet or to working patterns or the way we move about, you know, the implication is that it's impossible to change that the way we do things. We are going to have to change, you know, the kind of emissions reductions that we want to see. We need to see over the next couple of decades are going to be partly facilitated by technology. But technology is an enabler of what people need to do. But also has to be enabled by doing things in different ways. And we can see, you know, the reduction in travel during the pandemic. It was forced upon many of us. Other people didn't have that option. It was very difficult for them. But, you know, we're in this position of just sort of adapting at the moment, I think, of different working patterns, how many of us are going into an office, how many are part of the time, all of the time, or very little of the time. You know, the way we move around or what we do for our kind of leisure activities as well. So, yeah, I mean, as an example of electric vehicles, you know, that isn't a behavior-changing electric vehicle to a very large extent enables us to carry on moving around in the way we always have done. But a lot of people are anxious about it quite rightly, understandably, because of the need to charge a vehicle. It takes a lot longer, of course, than just filling up at a petrol station. That takes a change in behavior. And we've seen from various studies that people are quite okay with that. People can adapt to it. You get used to it quite how much range you get from a certain amount of charge, even during the winter when you don't get as much. And what it takes to charge up, if you have the luxury of having off-street parking and you can charge at home, you know, we can see that people are beginning maybe charging every night, realize actually you don't need to. It's going to be a couple of times a week. So, you know, we are able to adapt. And I think that's a really positive lesson that we can take. On that in particular, Keith, I mean, just in terms of the ownership of an electric vehicle and the cost, is that another example of where climate change becomes a rich man's business? It is very hard because, you know, the upfront cost is so high. It is a massive challenge. Actually, the upfront cost of combustion engine vehicles is higher than it was, you know. There's big changes in the second-hand market in particular there. So any kind of vehicle is expensive. Electric vehicle particularly expensive. So that is an issue. When you try to find the, you've got to find the cash to put down at the beginning, it doesn't, you know, help enormously to say that in the long run, it's cheaper. Okay, it depends on the relative costs of fossil fuels versus electricity. But the energy efficiency of an electric vehicle is so much better that providing electricity is priced fairly. And, you know, we have to talk about kind of the legacy costs of subsidies and so on. Then it should be better. But there are kind of financing deals out there now which can help with that. And that's all kind of positive. I mean, one thing I suppose we should maybe give to the Scottish government is an attention to the second-hand market for electric vehicles. That's an attempt to try and make it more affordable, more accessible. So yes, I think your point is fair, but it doesn't have to always be that way and things are changing in another direction, in the right direction, I think. But we obviously we hope for that to be changing faster. Speaking with transport, I've got a question from Colin Howden. Transport emissions are not falling in large part because the Scottish government's transport capital expenditure plans remain heavily skewed to new road building. Why has the CCC again failed to provide scrutiny here? Chris? It's a perfectly reasonable question and I'd be not surprised, I suspect, actually Colin, that this is a question that I'm asked very regularly. And I suppose the bottom line is that we are not here to make political choices for ministers. We're here to point out the implication of those choices. It clearly is a pro-climate move to reduce the spending on roads, but we need roads. So I suppose the key point is that if the government wants to build roads, then they have to explain under the Climate Change Act how it is that they intend to shrink emissions by doing other things. Now, we have looked in the past that whether we could build a solid evidence base that would say more directly that there should not be a road building program on a scale of X, but it is quite a contested area of policy of evidence, rather. So we've always tried instead to be balanced, which is what we're here to do, to provide analysis and commentary rather than pointing to things that we can't support with solid evidence. I think we may reach the point, it's maybe worth saying this to Colin and others, that we may reach a point where the demands of the targets are such that there is no other option other than to stop the road building program. We're not at that point yet. So at the moment, we're in the business of keeping options open. But when you look at that 2030 goal, for example, it starts to look unachievable, really, frankly, without some of these harder-edged policies. It's not that we're pro roads, though. I think it's important to say that. Just very clear that in the end, it's not roads themselves that deliver that create emissions. It's the vehicles on them. And we've typically focused more on reducing demands generally for transport, but also crucially on the vehicles that are on the roads. That's where the big win is in emissions terms is in actually changing the fuel type of the vehicles that's on those roads. And just to make that point again, given that we have more ambitious targets in Scotland for reducing transport emissions, the fact that the biggest element of the reduction in transport emissions, which is electric vehicles, is going more slowly now than the rest of the UK is a source of serious concern. Emily, I felt your progress chart offered in part a solution around aviation. Why is the Scottish Government not doing anything about aviation, do you think? Well, that's a good question. I mean, we've... In fact, I think there was a statement that the Scottish Government are committing to aviation growth coming back for the pandemic. So there's just nothing in there about how... Yeah, about a sort of... There's no target, there's no milestone to say how they could limit aviation demand. And given the scale of the challenge in 2030, so we've had a look at it in terms of... I talked about this seven to eight megaton gap that we have in 2030 from our pathway. So our pathway includes some limitations of aviation demand growth. So there's this seven to eight megaton gap. This is not going to be just one silver bullet that solves this. They have to do it across all the sectors. They have to do a bit from where they can. It's going to be one megaton from going faster in buildings or one megaton from going faster with electric vehicles than we have got in our pathway. And this aviation demand thing needs to go in there as well because otherwise, you know, they can't rely on the other sectors. Just too much to do it has to be across the way. So I'm not really sure why it's not being tackled, to be honest. Look, because on farming and land use in particular, kind of two big Scottish trotemic issues, things that people symbolise Scotland with, if you like, you really don't hold back and you cite a lack of any detail on low carbon agricultural policy following Scotland's exit from the EU. It seems extraordinary that we haven't managed to put together policies that might replace ones that we had when we were part of the EU. Why do you think that's happened? Do I pick that one up? Who wants to take that one? Well, this has been my sort of long run criticism really in the five years I've been doing this job that, you know, really, really important part of the transition to net zero or indeed to the old target that we had, the 80% target, is the change in the use of land that is necessary to allow us, you know, for all sorts of reasons, but particularly to allow us to store more carbon in that land. And Scotland needs to do actually a really important job on that because it also impacts on the rest of the UK and the achievement of the net zero target that we have at UK level as a whole. So, you know, I've been making the argument pretty consistently that you've got to have policies that start from the principle that we do actually need to change things. You've got to kind of get to a better place. And it's an interesting thing. When it comes to agriculture, when it comes to land use, it is a very, how can I put this? It's a very policy driven thing already. So you've got a kind of set of things happening on the land. Most land is agricultural. There are a set of things that are driven by policies, some of which we've had in place for quite a long time. So we can almost forgotten the fact that the profession of farming is driven by policy and has been released since the 1930s. So we're in a kind of world where we have at our disposal tools to change things. And I suppose this is... Listen, I'm not here to talk about Brexit benefits, but believe me, but this is one of those areas where there is certainly more ability to do more outside of Europe. It's probably the only area where you could say that that kind of creates that kind of platform or opportunity. And the Scottish government just hasn't taken that. I think you could also say the UK government hasn't taken that. You know, that we saw with Michael Gold when he was in death, I remember that. There was a kind of big move actually to quite an imaginative type of policy making there to try and... The idea that really we needed a set of services from land, which included climate mitigation, but also included all sorts of other things. Think about kind of upland flood management. You know, you could put trees upland so that we don't have huge amounts of water flooding into cities. Those sorts of things basically involved the stewards of the land being paid to do some of those things. And I think, you know, that idea was encapsulated in a policy called ELM in death for us thinking, which is still motoring along, but doesn't seem to have the same sort of political oomph behind it that it had when Michael Gold was there thinking big thoughts about it. In Scotland, it was a much more kind of incremental thing. This kind of idea that really we'll keep what we've got already, thanks. And we'll try and, you know, shave a bit off here and shape it over here in this way. We never felt that was going to get much further. And it doesn't appear to be doing anything at all at the moment. And I think the kind of crucial thing is when you look at the Scottish government's own objectives here, this is not just what we are saying. They are projecting a fall in agricultural emissions and an enormous increase in the amount of carbon that's stored in the land. And we don't have policies that would deliver it. I think even more important than that, the legislative ability to do that points to those policies coming in the second half of this decade. So how we achieve the fallen emissions now that's being projected is just not clear at all. So I think more than anything, this is a message from us that if you're serious about these targets, then we need to understand that. If you want to get a better report card from the CCC, then we need to see that kind of policy detail. And we are here, of course, to engage with that. You know, we've got analysis potentially that could underpin some of that. So it's not that this is just a sort of, you know, a shout into the dark. We are proactively here to help and advise on that stuff. So it's just not happening. There are lots of warm words. And when it comes to agriculture, not much more than that, frankly. Chris, maybe a political point, but let's not deter from that. Do you think that perhaps particularly on land use and agriculture, host Brexit and the aftershock of that, particularly the Scotland that didn't vote in a majority from that, do you think there's just been a reluctance to design or adopt anything new that would replace what was there before? Yeah, I do think that, actually. Having spent a number of years in the Scottish government before doing this job, that kind of shock of Brexit I think is behind some of this. It's a feeling that there wasn't a place that Scotland wanted to be in the first place. But I also know that the farming community sees the opportunity of being outside of those rules too. So there's a big push actually from the farming community themselves to be around the table with ministers helping to design policy. And here, I'm very, very clear in whenever I talk about land emissions and agriculture, not to make out that the sector is, not to kind of victimize the sector. But I think it's important to say that they are the solution in the end. You need these farmers to adopt a new set of practices and quite rightly, they should be rewarded for that. But it's important to say, I think, that the representatives of that sector in Scotland are very far from being supportive of some of the steps that would be necessary for Net Zero. I think you could contrast that with similar bodies at UK level. NFU, for example, much more ready to talk about Net Zero and the objective of that and how farming would contribute to that. It's a more difficult discussion in Scotland. And I think part of that, to kind of direct the discussion back to what ministers are responsible for, part of that is because ministers are not giving them the signal that they're willing to do this. So in the end, these are practices that should be rewarded, and ministers need to be clear with the sector that that is the way they view it. And then it's a new revenue stream for farmers. I think at the moment it's set up as an attack on them, particularly some of the stuff on diet. And, you know, on occasion, felt that we need to change the story here. We need to talk about this being a set of progressive steps for a sector that has not been allowed to progress because of the shackles of policy mainly from Europe, actually. So this is quite an interesting place, actually, to look at that post-Brexit policy challenge. But sadly, it doesn't look like that ministers are stepping up to it. That might be a good place to bring in just the question about disconnect between policies. So this is a question from Bruce Wilson. It's directed at Chris, but perhaps Keith or Emily could come in on this. With ever greater consistency in the message, we must solve the climate and biodiversity crisis holistically and a new natural environment bill set to bring in legally binding nature targets. What's the scope for improving and dovetailing advice to government on both of these vital and related issues? Sure, who wants to come in there, Chris? Don't know, Emily, do you want to pick? Maybe pick that up, Emily. No, you go ahead. Why don't I kick it off? I mean, I'll say something on this because there's something I feel quite passionate about and maybe just to make one point. This is a report about the Scottish government. It's not a report about the CCC, but a point that as an institution, as an organization, the CCC is changing, actually, when it comes to the topic of Bruce's question. So we felt for a while that we needed to develop a more rounded view of the challenge of tackling climate change alongside the challenge of restoring nature and preserving nature. So we've made quite a bold step to do that this year. Now, you may know that the CCC is responsible for broadly two things. We give advice on how to reduce emissions, which is mainly what we're talking about today. We also give advice on how we respond to the climate risks that we face themselves. So adaptation, as it's sometimes called. And the discussion of what you do with nature and what you do with lands and agriculture is very live in both of those fields. So, you know, for example, on the adaptation side, if you don't restore peatland to the kind of rates that we recommend, you lose it all together in a warming climate. So you lose it as a store. You lose, of course, then with it the biodiversity benefits of having these rich peat bogs and peat stores which Scotland has so much of. So it's a good example of the need to think in a more integrated way about these big challenges. And actually, that's a big challenge that we in the CCC have kind of taken on. So this year developed a team that will look across the adaptation mitigation challenge when it comes to land and agriculture, but also will look at biodiversity and nature. So we're going to try and develop a much more well-rounded view of that. And I'll say on this call, it's really bloody difficult. So that's one of the big challenges, actually, is that, you know, you can't view trees and peat as you would a machine or an engineered technology to reduce emissions because you have these wider benefits. So I'm very clear that what we've advised in the past is very compatible with restoring nature and seeing improvement to biodiversity. But actually, we don't really understand the ways that that happens. And of course, it's a much more rich and difficult discussion when you think of the range of evidence you need to bring in. I think some of that is the reason why we haven't more broadly made progress on this stuff. So you've talked about nature-based solutions, which is a term I don't really like very much because it's too loose, I think. But that is becoming more and more of the sort of common currency globally now when you talk about cops and what happens each year with COP 27. And that's the point, I think, to hand over to someone else. I think just to make the point in Montreal, we are having another COP on biodiversity, which is looking at solving the biodiversity crisis alongside the climate crisis. And to do that in a holistic way, as Bruce suggests, is the challenge, I think. And if anything, that COP has been better at discussing some of these challenges than the climate COP that we had in Glasgow and which has just occurred in Egypt. So I think this is an area where there's a lot more to do and a lot more clearly to do in policy terms, too. Keith, Emily, did you want to come in on that at all? Well, I think one of the points there is just, I mean, the question was talking about the scope for doing more kind of interrelated thinking. And the scope is obviously there. And Chris has outlined why it's such a challenge. And the Scottish government does need to try to step up. It is a hugely complex area. We haven't particularly seen, I think, from other areas, that in spite of great intentions, the kind of matrix form of cabinet secretary responsibilities, which intended to kind of get a better cross linkage across different areas of policy, I think we see in some of the kind of policies related to climate change. Let's say the interrelation between transport and road policy and emissions reduction. That interrelationship, that kind of cross-sector whole system thinking is not quite actually happening. And this kind of whole area that Chris is just talking about is even more difficult. So we need to see greater effort there, I think. Keith, I'm going to come back to you again, because this is a question from Mark Winskill, but it's been the top upvoted question, if you like. And I think it's for you. The Scottish government is about to release an integrated energy strategy and the Just Transition Plan. Has the CCC analysed how Just Transition Plans affect energy transition priorities for Scotland? Well, the whole idea of a Just Transition is one that I think we support. The idea of fairness in terms of our transition to a lower carbon economy is absolutely essential. It needs to be afforded. The way that the costs and the benefits are shared has to be done in the right way. And that's just because that's just the right thing to do. But it's also essential to retaining public support for this. So it goes across a whole kind of range of issues. And yeah, Mark's quite right to raise it in respect of the energy transition. The Scottish government has promised us a plan that addresses the energy sector and Just Transition as one piece. It's a bit delayed relative to what they were hoping to do, but we're still hoping to see it by the end of this month. And I'm looking forward to seeing it and how they address this. A lot of attention quite reasonably in the Just Transition is given to, let's say, a graceful exit from older industries that are not really compatible with a low carbon future. And the obvious one is fossil fuel production and processing. And there's a lot of jobs in there. There's a lot of economic value in there. So clearly, that's a really difficult question. If you're working in that sector, what's going to happen to your job over the medium to long term? Yeah. I mean, we see some sort of good action, good outcomes, actually, in terms of building up a renewable energy sector and various people moving into that. But it's difficult. It's not always in the same place. It's not always the jobs that don't always arise at the right time. There's a lot of the skills that can be translated. Some of them it's kind of less obvious. And some of the certification, for example, in terms of safety practices and so on, could be made easier to translate. The understanding and the knowledge, the practices are right, but not always recognized. But another part of the Just Transition, I think, is about the affordability of energy. So we are quite right. We were talking, we've talked already in this event this morning about electric vehicles. We've talked about heat pumps. These things are expensive to buy or to install. We need to get the insulation right in buildings to make sure the heat pumps work effectively. There are bills to be paid. So that's another part of it. And if there's public support given to an industry that is being ramped down in some way, it doesn't disappear overnight. There is still going to be, in the shorter term, demand for fossil fuels. How is that investment going to be put to good use? What's the best use of it? It's not easy. So we haven't really got something to scrutinize yet. It's my feeling. I look forward to seeing it being published, what the Scottish Government says by the end of this month. Well, on that note, Chris, I want to come to talk to you about energy because you and I have had this discussion at other times. But today we see media reports about perhaps the Prime Minister giving into one faction of his party over onshore wind, perhaps as a concession because he may be opening a coal mine in Cumbria. Why can't we have a grown-up conversation about energy? Why does it always end up in a row about nuclear or fossil fuels or whatever? It's never very constructive. I don't know, Mandy. I mean, I sort of feel, I wish I had a good answer for that, but let me sort of give you a little story from my previous career. I mean, I used to work on tax policy years ago in the Treasury. And just a little aside, I absolutely loved working on tax policy. It was absolutely brilliant thing to work on because you basically gathered lots of evidence. You thought through what you could do with policies and you put up to ministers and they made decisions on it. And it was kind of, it was when you go to civil service finishing school, that's what you're taught happens with policy. And of course the reality is that that isn't how most policies made. The reason it happens for tax policies because ministers don't understand it. So they sort of let the officials do that process of optioneering and coming up with the evidence and then make decisions on the strength of that rather than coming at it with a hunch. Where they have a hunch, you get the very political decisions on tax, but most decisions on tax are not like that. Why do I tell you that story? Well, I sort of feel we need some of that in energy, really. I think that there needs to be a more evidence based discussion on the impacts of the energy system and how you change that. Climate is one of the things that we should be thinking about, but it's not the only thing that we should be thinking about. So Keith and his colleagues work very hard on issues of energy security, for example, and maintaining reliable supply of energy, which is a really, really important aspect of it. We are now experiencing a kind of reawakening of concerns about that. We're also experiencing a reawakening of concerns about the cost of energy, which is the other aspect of it. So I sort of feel there should be a better place to have a more measured discussion about our options in this area, but as you say, Mandy, it gets captured by what you might call the kind of culture wars. And the nuclear example is probably the best one now. I think that there is a certain brand of person who needs to see nuclear in the government's commitments to believe that any of this decarbonisation stuff makes sense. That increasingly isn't the case. There are ways to decarbonise the power system and the energy system without nuclear, but I think it's important that we have some basis to understand what it is that the government is planning to do on energy and a rational discussion about it. I think this is what I've said this to a few people over the years that the oddity of energy policy is that it does feel like politicians can have a thoroughly agreeable lunch with someone in the energy sector and suddenly change their mind on pretty fundamental factors. And there isn't an institution that then does the kind of check and the balance on that, except us, funnily enough. I mean, I don't feel we should be the energy advisor. One of the things that we do is looking at energy systems, but it needs to be something else, I think. So I would love to have a more rational debate on energy into which I think we would play. But I sort of feel that there's a need for that. You do see it in other countries. Keith and I very recently were in Denmark, and there is I think of the energy agency that does a bit of that. Interesting, it's part of the government, but it acts fairly independently of the government and puts out useful factual information about options. I think maybe that sort of model would work in institutional terms, but the broader debate about energy is, well, it's a right old mess, Mandy. And you see it playing out on the front page of tabloid newspapers rather than in the pages of detailed technical reporters. Good analysis, Chris. A right old mess. So that's energy supply. But energy demand is also the area that we should really be focusing on. And it seems that the immediate response to a cost of living crisis and energy crisis is for the government to step in and start paying people's bills. So the incentive surely there should be to try and reduce that bill. And I just worry that we want, or the government wants to implement big trotemic things rather than say, here's a set of curtains or here's how to turn your boiler to a more efficient setting. I mean, is there a bit of that? You think they want big, meaty things that they can say they've delivered? Yeah, there's probably quite a bit of that. And it's probably easier to take big steps on the supply side. There's kind of a few big actions, let's say, or actions by a small number of actors, you know, investors there. And crumbs it was, Guy Newey is now chief executive of, or managing whatever the title is, of the energy systems catapult. He used to be a special advisor to one of the past energy ministers in the UK government. And I remember Guy talking about, you know, how energy policy or indeed any policy is formed. And he said, well, quite honestly, it is the case that a minister likes turning up in a hard hat and a kind of yellow high vis jacket and cutting a ribbon on something very big. It just sounds, you know, amazing. But the reality, as he suggests, Mandy, is that we do need to take action on the demand side much more seriously. You know, we talked, you know, a few years ago about the energy trilemma and how difficult it was to resolve this tension between, you know, security of energy supply, you know, emissions reduction and affordability. And things are different now. The good news is actually the same things, you know, deliver renewable energy delivers in terms of reducing our dependency on fossil fuel imports. For new electricity production, the renewables are the cheapest. And of course, you know, renewables have much, much lower emissions. So that's great. That's the difference on the supplies. But on the demand side, you know, we've got to be reducing demand. And that's the action that we've got to, you know, get moving on, changing, going away from the direct use of fossil fuels in buildings, in transport, in industry. Towards something else. I'm going to put this question to all of you. It's from Kate Studd and she says, you suggest, although I would say you don't just suggest you say this, that Scotland is losing its leadership on climate. Is the CCC looking globally for new models of decision making and governance that would deliver change at transformative pace and scale? Chris? Yes, we are. And just to kind of start at the top, I suppose that the great experiment in the UK and in Scotland has been to have a climate change acts that sets up a legal goal and has makes that the responsibility of the government to meet that goal in, you know, over the longer term and to have an institution, the CCC oversee all of that. And one of the things that we do is reach out now to a group of similar organizations around the world under a similar piece of legislation. There's about 20 to 30 climate councils, you could call them like us now, doing similar jobs. So one of the first things we're doing is using that network to try and come to some understanding about how other parts of the world do this and, you know, some parts of the world do it well. I think we've done it well, for example, in the renewables transition in Scotland and Scotland and across the UK. And it looks like we're, you know, motoring now across the UK on transport, albeit Scotland's a bit slow, but motoring on transport, Chris. Yeah, well, exactly. Exactly. That's the right metaphor. Interesting that we're not doing well in other areas. And we've talked about some of those things that you might call kind of social issues or lifestyle issues. And I really do feel we've more to learn that kind of idea of having technical pathways isn't having the same impact on policymaking in those areas. One area that I'll just kind of, I'll draw out actually from our experience of working in that network of climate councils now is from South Africa. They have a relatively new climate council, which works in a totally different way to us. And as you would expect, perhaps, if you know the history of South Africa, what it does more is look at representation of people in the transition. So it thinks much more about making sure that the voices of people who work in fossil field industries in South Africa are heard over that transition to something cleaner. So it starts in the principle that we need to decarbonise it, but that we also need to help people to make that transition. That's the kind of stuff that we haven't done that well in the UK. And I do kind of want to make at least a few positive points about the Scottish government. That just transition is something that the Scottish government has done more of and put more focus on than their counterparts in Westminster. So I think that kind of thing is, you know, an interesting thing to look at, but we're always kind of looking out for other ways of doing that, and it's not just in that network. And I think really important to say, although we talk a good game about the importance of the UK institutional framework on climate backed by those legal targets, it's not the only way to do it. And I think we should be humble actually about learning some of that, particularly in areas where we're just not doing well like adaptation, you know, we've got much more to do on that so actually it's quite exciting to do that. And often, you know, I'm finding more and more now that we are getting our inspiration for the analytical work that we do in the CCC by looking to other countries, just back from Denmark, as I mentioned, lots of thoughts about what we could do to try and mirror some of the things they do there too. Sorry, I was just going to follow on from that with Chris, Keith, and then I'll come to both you and Emily because I've got a question specifically for Emily. Just on that global network, Chris, I mean, is there any feeling that you've picked up from that global network that Scotland's reputation for being a leader in this area is being in any way damaged? I don't think so. And I think it's really important to say that. I mean, we are the Canary in the mine, I think. So we're pointing, we can see now that that historic lead that Scotland has had because of the renewables transition in Scotland is now more or less lost. We're at the point now in emissions terms where Scotland's emissions fall looks similar to the UK's now. So that kind of period, I've been doing this stuff in and around Scotland for over a decade. All that time has been in a world where Scotland was sort of marching ahead. That was always a sort of narrative. That's still what you hear when you hear about Scotland in other places, that kind of willingness to see through the renewables transition. The Scotland thing which we haven't talked about is an enormous, enormous interest in developing offshore wind, much of which sadly is going to struggle to market, but the fact that there is that interest in it, you know, still broadly the discussion of Scotland's ambition is what you hear externally. My worry is that that will change when it becomes obvious that progress has stalled, as we've said in this report, that all the other lines on the sectoral charts are flat, that that reputation starts to be tarnished. And of course, going back to a more political point, Scotland has made quite a big play in this first minister in particular of its climate credentials in those global networks. So actually, we've remarkably been successful as a part of the UK in those global forums, part of because Nicola Sturgeon has been so prominent in the discussion of climate and has been able to be seen as a leader by others. I wouldn't want us to lose that. So I think that that international leadership rests ultimately now on what we do at home and if we get on track to some of the stuff that we are highlighting in this report, then I think we can continue to burnish our credentials in those international forums. If we don't, then I think we do risk losing that reputation. And it could certainly be damaged if the Scottish government ends up in court over missing its targets. Exactly. Sorry, Keith, you wanted to come in. No, it's fine. I'm conscious we're running out of, again, towards the sort of half past 11. And I don't know, maybe there's one or two, where we're best placed in terms of wrapping up, Mendy, whatever last question do you want to ask? I think I've got... Any of us on behalf of the audience? One last question for Emily, and then a final question, I think, which could go to Chris to finish. If that's okay. Emily, this is from Dan Barlow. The report suggests that decarbonisation as a target needs to be fully embedded in all areas of Scottish policymaking to get to its full potential. What and how do you suggest the Scottish government could further focus practical efforts to achieve this? Like perhaps both go to Keith and you, Emily. Yeah, I guess I'll just briefly say, I mean, it's sort of this key thing. When you're making a policy decision, you really need to be considering the climate effects. So we talked a bit about road building earlier, and then we also talked about this aim to reduce car kilometres by 20% by 2030. And yeah, if we're talking about road building, we need to be, the Scottish government needs to be thinking about this aim that they have, this commitment that they have, and then how that ties into their emissions, reductions, commitments, and taking that into account when decisions are being made. There are various things that come into each decision and each planning decision, et cetera. But that has to be a core part of it, is how this affects the journey to net zero. So I'll just say that briefly, and then I can pass to Keith. Well, yeah. I mean, I'm very sympathetic to that idea as well of a kind of an emissions reduction test, any kind of policy that looks like it could have an impact positive or negative on emissions and on our ability to adapt to the climate for that matter. That really needs to come into it strongly as well. Everything needs to be kind of, you need to test it through those two lenses. Very often the action you take comes together. And if it fails that test, you've really got to question the policy and whether it's the right thing to do, go back and think again. And the different departments responsible for coming up with those policies have to talk to each other much more and make sure that those tests can be passed, I think. Gosh, I've covered a lot of ground and there's still more to go. And I'm sorry, we haven't managed to get to all the questions that have come up in the inbox here. But to finish Chris, I mean, I guess there is no disguising how grim this has all been. I think I'll often have a large wine now if it's... But probably not. But if you had Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary in the room right now or any other members of the government, and the response basically has been that they know there is work to be done, but also they're blaming Westminster for not implementing policies. Yes, I saw that, yeah. What would you be saying? Oh, listen, I mean, that's a really good question to end. And just to make the point, I did see one of the questions pop in, would the CCC host an event with the Minister? We'd love to do that. I mean, I think that kind of idea of tackling this thing collaboratively is very much what we're here to do, I think. So there's an open invitation there for Michael Matheson or any other member of the Scottish government to come and join us at future events. I'm happy to chair an audience. I bet you would be, Mandy. What I would say is to sort of round things off, we have been very critical in this call, very critical in this report, very critical in the news coverage today as well, but I wanted to sort of end on a more positive note. The thing that we need to do collectively on climate is profoundly positive for all sorts of reasons and not just for the climate reasons. What's holding us back is not a kind of technical reason any longer. We know how to decarbonise the economy. We know how to do it quickly. We know that there are all sorts of benefits in doing so. Had we gone harder at reducing emissions from buildings, we would not as a country be shitting, shivering in cold houses, drafty houses right now in the first cold snap that we've had this winter. There are all sorts of reasons to do this. And I sort of feel that the message I would like to give to ministers is stop this nonsense of, you know, tit for tat blaming UK government for this and that. Get on with doing the job of being ambitious. That's what the act is there for, I think. I've said this to someone recently, but I kind of may regret seeing it on this call, but I feel that we need to be a bit more Victorian about it. Sort of viewing it as a big ambitious project. That yes, it is hard, but it's worth it. You know, some of the big infrastructure projects that the Victorians pushed through, for example, I was talking to someone recently about the fact that we have amazing fresh water in the West of Scotland here from Lochatron, which is one of those mega projects. It didn't happen through sort of incremental managerial approach to change. So the reason to do all this is, of course, we have to tackle the climate crisis, but the reason to want to do it is a whole set of other wider social reasons. We will be a better place to live if we make this big change. And that kind of ambition, as I'm afraid, not what we see from Scottish ministers yet. So I think the final point for me maybe just to wrap things up before I say thank you to you, Mandy, for hosting it. It's just that I hope next year we'll be back here with a more positive response to what the Scottish government has planned for us in the next calendar year. We know that they are planning a new climate plan, which will update some of those ambitions. I really, really hope that it grasps the nettle to use that term and really steps towards these big ambitious things that we broadly know now need to be done. So the time to do all that is really now. In fact, the time to do it was probably a few years ago. But can I just end by saying thanks to you, Mandy? And also thanks particularly to the audience for tuning in and sticking with us right till half past 11. We'll see you again next year.