Patrick Harvie
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“That challenge is important because, when other politicians and the media choose to ignore the arguments of far-right populism or, worse still, excuse them under the guise of “legitimate concerns”, they gradually legitimise them.”
“That is how we build, to quote the motion, “a successful nation, where everyone can feel hope”. It is how we pay to protect public services, tackle poverty and more. However, how could we expect a political party that is run by millionaires and funded by billionaires to understand that or even to care?”
“These cause disruption and devastation, highlighting the vulnerability of our globally interconnected societies.” As Brian Hoskins, the chair of the Grantham research institute on climate change and the environment, has said, “the discourse around net zero is increasingly decoupled from that science and our changing weather.”
“Patrick Harvie: No, I will not be taking interventions. Those are the voices that we should be listening to, not Nigel Farage’s hand-picked politicians.”
“To be honest, I was tempted to ignore this debate altogether. I can think of a dozen better things I could do with a few hours than debate one of the most incoherent motions that I have seen in 23 years in this Parliament. Goodness knows what shape it was in when the chamber desk first got its hands on it and tried to sort it out.”
“On net zero, which yesterday’s debate showed most political parties understand to be a necessity and an opportunity, Reform members repeatedly said that they support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position even as they appealed for ever more fossil fuels while the mercury rises outside.”
The complete record
Every one of 544 lines we hold for Patrick Harvie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 11.
“There is still a chance that we can save Loch Lomond—the decision is not set in stone—so will the First Minister listen to all those who have been objecting for years, put the natural environment ahead of corporate profit and recall the decision?”
“Outside Parliament today, people gathered to express their anger at the Scottish Government’s intention to approve a resort development by Flamingo Land on the shores of Loch Lomond. The proposal has been opposed by the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and more than 155,000 people, and it was rejected unanimously by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. It is the most unpopular development in the history of the Scottish planning system. I know that the First Minister is about to tell us that he cannot comment on a specific appeal, but his minister has already made a political decision. It took Ivan McKee just two working days to announce his refusal to act in the public interest and recall the appeal, so he and the First Minister must be accountable for that now.”
“As a service provider and an employer, when we make facilities available there is an expectation that people will choose a facility respecting what we have done to balance different rights in line with our legal responsibilities. Our staff are always able to provide advice on the facilities that are available at Holyrood. I assure the member that this is not going to be policed by the corporate body. Like other public sector bodies, we have a complaints process, which staff can advise on and which is set out on our website, for those who wish to complain, and we will consider any complaints. However, we are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities as a corporate body. The Deputy Presiding Officer: A number of members wish to ask supplementary questions. I hope that they will be suitably brief and the responses likewise.”
“The member mentions the code of practice on which the EHRC is currently consulting. That code of practice suggests that birth certificates could be required from people merely because they are suspected of being transgender. I have to say that I feel almost nauseous using that language, because I am old enough to remember how other queer people felt when we had to worry about whether we were suspected of being who we are in our society. Can the corporate body promise us that nobody will be required to provide birth certificates or other paperwork merely because someone intolerant suspects them of being transgender? Christine Grahame: I am sorry if that issue is being raised.”
“The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect its founding principles, to be an open and accessible institution and to promote participation and equal opportunities, and we remain deeply committed to those principles and to providing—I know that Mr Harvie does not like the word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary communities, feel supported and welcome to work and to visit. The Parliament has, for many years, provided a wide and varied range of facilities across the building, including a number of single-occupancy spaces that are available for, and used by, everyone. Patrick Harvie: If that is the intention and what the corporate body wishes to achieve—I do not doubt that it may intend that—I have to say that the decision that was made recently fails to do that.”
“Does the corporate body recognise the impact that the decision has already had on those who are being told that they are no longer permitted to use basic facilities such as toilets on the same basis as everyone else and who now feel unwelcome and demeaned in their own workplace? The Deputy Presiding Officer: We also need more brevity in questions. Christine Grahame: Some of the language that Mr Harvie has used is rather unfortunate, because I hope that the corporate body has acted in a tolerant, sensitive, delicate and balanced manner.”
“In his words: “It is important to note that you are allowed to exclude trans women from these facilities, but you are not obliged to.” I am concerned that, in making the decision to take an exclusive and exclusionary approach, the SPCB risks taking us back to the breach of human rights that existed prior to the creation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and to a position that, as little as 10 years ago, was the obsession of the extremist fringe of the United States Republican Party. It is not enough to use words such as “inclusive experience” or “welcoming environment”.”
“Patrick Harvie: The cross-party letter, which has been published online, has the support of 17 members from four political parties and 31 members of staff. It expresses serious concerns about the decision that has recently been made and draws attention to the comments made by Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge, who said that the Supreme Court’s judgment has been misunderstood.”
“That will include stakeholders with insight into, and experience of, gender reassignment as well as other groups with protected characteristics, because the SPCB is required to balance the rights of all those with a protected characteristic. I am just about to come to the end of my answer, Deputy Presiding Officer. That further phase will also enable us to take account of the new EHRC code of practice when that is published, later this year. I hope that that is helpful. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the member, I advise any members who wish to ask a supplementary question but who have not already pressed their request-to-speak buttons to do so now. I hope for more brevity in responses to supplementary questions.”
“A detailed equality impact assessment was undertaken to assess the impact on people with each of the protected characteristics, and that was published, together with the SPCB paper, as part of the interim stance. That shows how we are balancing requirements across all groups, based on the facilities currently available at Holyrood, to create the optimal range of facilities for all users, again balancing the different protected characteristics. Members will be aware that the next phase of work, which will look at changes in the medium to long term, includes a wide consultation with staff, members, members’ staff and other stakeholders. That will include consultation with external groups and organisations that work regularly and closely with people with all the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010.”
“As stated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the law, as set out by the Supreme Court, is “effective immediately” and those who have duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices. The SPCB has, for many years, provided a wide range of inclusive facilities at Holyrood, including gender-neutral facilities. In the light of the Supreme Court ruling, our advisers have considered an interim stance—and I emphasise the term “interim”—that supports the SPCB in continuing to meet its legal responsibilities and to do so in a way that provides clarity and is inclusive for all those using our facilities.”
“We will, of course, consider the letter and will be happy to provide a response. In the meantime, our having considered this sensitive issue, I would like to make the following general points on the SPCB’s behalf, if I may, in response to Mr Harvie’s question. The SPCB remains deeply committed to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all those who work at and visit Holyrood. That includes people in the trans and non-binary community, as well as those with other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. In fulfilling its various roles and responsibilities, the SPCB must balance the needs and requirements of all those with a range of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and must also take all necessary steps to ensure that Parliament complies with its legal responsibilities in a timely manner.”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what its response is to the open letter to the Presiding Officer, signed by cross-party MSPs and staff, regarding the interim position on the use of facilities in the Parliament building. Christine Grahame (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): I thank Patrick Harvie for raising the question, because it is important that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, for whom I speak, has the opportunity to set out the rationale for this collective and cross-party decision and to provide assurance that it is committed to offering an inclusive experience for all those who work at and visit Holyrood. Although we have been made aware of the open letter’s existence via media reports, we have, in fact, only just received it this afternoon, so the SPCB has not yet had a chance to consider it.”
“I again express support for the Labour amendment, and I hope that the Government is supportive of the Green amendment. I move amendment S6M-17648.2, to insert at end: “; acknowledges that any significant increase in public, community and shared ownership of energy infrastructure will require new and increased forms of support from the Scottish Government, including making public land available for energy projects and diversifying the ownership of existing energy assets; considers that community ownership of heat networks offers further opportunities to maximise the social, economic and environmental benefit of heat decarbonisation, and calls on the Scottish Government to build on its relationship with Denmark to draw on its experience of both shared ownership of renewables and developing heat networks built and operated on a not-for-profit basis.” 15:09”
“Denmark is 50 years ahead of Scotland in that regard, and it has shown that a non-profit approach can achieve the transformational change that it has put into practice. That approach creates community benefit—it puts the community benefit first—but it can also earn and retain public support, and we need to do much more to make that a reality in Scotland. The energy transformation that is required is not only about rural communities, although it is significant in those rural communities that have wind and solar developments, where we need to retain public support for infrastructure, rather than demonising infrastructure, as some seem tempted to do at the moment. However, our urban landscape also needs to transform, and the public and community ownership of energy infrastructure in our urban landscape is equally important.”
“We perhaps need to go a little further than simply encouraging the private sector to maybe donate a little and instead make it a requirement, so that we see a significant increase. There is also an opportunity to improve the situation through the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. I hope that the bill will be amended at stages 2 and 3 so that we can take advantage of that opportunity. Before I close, I will say something about heat. There is also a huge opportunity in the urban landscape for the transformation of our energy system. It is a real necessity that we achieve that, which creates an opportunity for benefits in areas that do not have access to wind farm sites, for example.”
“Sarah Boyack: The member’s amendment makes a point about “diversifying the ownership of existing energy assets”. Would an example of that include, when repowering is taking place, a company thinking about possibly donating one or two of the turbines to the local community so that the local community could own those turbines? We have the example—if we go way back—of Fintry, where the local community negotiated an element of that wind farm. The issue is not about nationalising projects; it is about having a share in projects and working constructively to give communities that opportunity. Patrick Harvie: Both repowering and lease renewal for land can be trigger points or opportunities to achieve that.”
“Public bodies that are responsible for managing large swathes of Scotland’s public land, such as Forestry and Land Scotland, already host large numbers of renewable energy projects, but few of those projects are community owned. Such bodies have an opportunity to step in and increase the transfer of energy assets into community hands at the point of lease renewals. A recent opportunity to do that on the Cowal peninsula in Argyll and Bute was missed. Cowal Community Energy was not able to enter the tendering process, which was designed to attract bids from corporate players. When the cabinet secretary or the minister responds to the debate, I hope that they will respond on that particular issue. Are they aware of how that barrier came about? What could they do to prevent such opportunities from being missed in the future?”
“All the benefit that flows from such projects can be put back to social and environmental use in the community, thereby providing a direct social benefit in addition to the direct benefit of increased renewable capacity, as well as a change in the relationship between people and the energy that we consume. That cultural change needs to go hand in hand with the practical infrastructure changes if we are to continue to earn, reinforce and retain public support. There is a great deal that we need to do more of, both in providing access to capital for new projects and in repowering existing projects. Publicly owned assets can be used to lever in the capital that is needed. As several members have remarked, we also need to make public land available for community energy.”
“However, as I said in my intervention on the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, we must recognise that, despite the long-term growth in renewables, which is extremely positive in its own right, we have not seen a substantial part of that growing renewables sector being put into community hands. I express my thanks to Community Energy Scotland, the Scottish community coalition on energy and Social Enterprise Scotland for their briefings in support of the debate. They make it clear that, although some corporate, privately owned projects make community benefit payments available, the benefit that comes from community ownership projects is many times more substantial than those community benefit payments.”
“In short, we should not swap a bunch of fossil-fuel multinationals for a set of renewable multinationals. We have an opportunity to transform ownership of our energy system, and to transform its economic benefit, too. None of this is new, and none of it is rocket science. It is all stuff that other countries have done successfully for years, decades or even generations before now. Many other European countries have high levels of public, community and not-for-profit ownership of energy infrastructure. I am pleased that the debate gives us an opportunity to focus on the issue.”
“Therefore, we are at a pretty dangerous point in relation to how our political landscape is dealing with the energy transition. Most members of the public want climate action, and they embrace the idea of a future that prioritises renewables. However, it is critical that we recognise the need to continue to earn, and to reinforce, that support for an urgent transition. To do so, we must ensure that people benefit from it, but many are rightly cynical about the profit motives of an overwhelmingly privatised energy system. A key part of the energy transition must be not only replacing the past century’s dirty fossil-fuel power generation with renewables but rebalancing the ownership of our energy system. It is a case not only of putting the power to generate electricity into local communities, but of putting its ownership into their hands.”
“The amendment in my name sets out the positive steps that will need to be taken if we are to maximise the public, environmental, social and economic benefits of having community, public and shared not-for-profit ownership of our energy infrastructure. We are at a critical point in the transition to a sustainable energy system, but we are also at a point at which people are struggling with their energy bills. Political parties across the UK are beginning to be too willing to accept pushback against the idea of an energy transition, and some parties are either heeding or even peddling the misinformation that is coming from anti-climate action or anti-net zero voices, including those that are funded by the corporate fossil fuel giants.”
“I add my voice to those of members across the chamber who have expressed how welcome the debate is. Of course, by their nature, the amendments do not all come from the same point of view, but I note that they all seek to add something to the motion rather than to delete anything from it. That demonstrates that there is at least some consensus on what the Scottish Government has to say, even if Opposition parties think that more needs to be said. Unlike the Conservative amendment, the Scottish Labour and Green amendments bring positive ideas to the table, which is the intention behind both of them.”
“That is why we did the pilot and put the additional £8 million into it. The fund will support community groups across Scotland to develop their own wind and solar photovoltaic projects. Applications for funding are now open and will close on 25 June. Full funding guidance, including information on how to apply, can be found on the Local Energy Scotland website, which includes a list of Local Energy Scotland officials in an area with whom communities can get in touch in the first instance.”
“We are 55 per cent towards our target of renewable community energy generation by 2030. In large part, there has been a real step change in the number of projects because of CARES. Of course, there are still other barriers—I will mention them in other parts of my speech—and there is a lot that we can do to bring them down. Patrick Harvie’s position is absolutely right. I want the barriers to communities’ ability to take forward projects to be looked at and eliminated as much as possible. The £8 million community energy generation growth fund will boost community energy and it is a significant expansion on last year’s community energy pilot. Going back to Patrick Harvie’s point, we have seen success with the funding that has been given to CARES in work with communities to overcome some of those barriers.”
“The cabinet secretary is setting out reasons why community ownership has significant benefits and there is very little dissent from that principle. Renewable energy has been growing dramatically for many years in Scotland. If the model that has been pursued so far has been a success, why does the cabinet secretary think that there is not a more significant share of the overall renewable energy industry in community, public or shared hands? Why do we have a very private sector-dominated industry? Gillian Martin: There are a few reasons for that. Historically, communities felt that they almost had to be engineers or to have an expert in their community, and one of the reasons why we set up CARES was to share information with communities on how to implement projects.”
“We also have to bear in mind that we have a cost of living crisis, so when we put in place the climate action that we want, it must be affordable and part of a just transition.”
“I was under the impression that it was sent out well in advance, so I apologise for that. I will look into why that was not the case, because that situation is not optimal. Patrick Harvie and I might disagree on how we get there, but we are still on track to net zero for 2045. I believe that all the climate action that we take should be achievable and bring the country with us. We need to get a lot better in the Parliament, and in our discourse in general, at showing the public why it is important for them to get behind the actions that we take. The Parliament as a whole needs to look seriously at ramping up some of the actions that we need to take, and we need to talk in positive terms about what those actions will mean for the wellbeing of people in Scotland.”
“I am grateful for sight of the cabinet secretary’s statement, although the monitoring report only became available to members during the statement. The chance to have seen the report in advance would have been more useful. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the problem is not only that fewer indicators are on track and that more of them are off track than was the case a year ago but that the Scottish Government has spent that year diluting, delaying and downgrading climate-positive policies, so more aims that are in the “too early to say” column will be off track by this time next year? Will the Government change direction and restore the ambition on areas such as clean heating, in which it has clearly downgraded and ditched its previous policy commitments? Gillian Martin: First, I apologise if people did not receive the report.”
“However, sadly, we have none of that detail because, unfortunately, the UK Government has not shared any of that information with us—or with members on Labour’s front bench.”
“Angus Robertson: I agree entirely with Patrick Harvie about the damaging impact that Brexit has had on people’s life experience and ability to travel, work, live and love elsewhere in Europe, and on the ability of our neighbours from the rest of Europe to come here. Since Brexit, the damage has been felt particularly in our university sector. He is absolutely right to highlight that. One of the difficulties with the agreement is that there is, literally, no detail. There is a commitment to a “youth experience scheme” that is supposed to afford young people the ability to come and go. We do not know how many young people or when the scheme will start; nor do we know any of the rules around it. None of that has been shared with us. Do I welcome the fact that a scheme may come that might be good? Yes—if that is what it is.”
“The anti- European posturing from some members is out of step not only with Scottish public opinion, but with public opinion throughout the rest of the UK. The public want progress to be made on youth mobility, which should have been among the first things to be signed off between the UK Government and the EU, but it was not. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is sickening to see politicians who exercised the right of freedom of movement when they were young depriving today’s younger generation of that same right and freedom? Will he reinforce to the UK Government that, if it is to make progress in the future on an issue that impacts on devolved matters such as further and higher education, it must start talking to us?”
“I would love a reset of our relationship with the European Union, if that reset means restoring the rights, freedoms and opportunities of young people to move on their terms, when they choose and for their purposes, or, indeed, the right for economic integration with our European family of nations. That level of reset does not seem to be on offer from the UK. If we want it, the only way to get it will be to do it for Scotland, as an independent member of the European Union. 15:41”
“It is actively promoting far-right politics in European countries, and it is a threat to democratic countries that it previously treated as allies. In short, the UK can no longer afford that dual approach to the world—the idea that it does not need to choose between a democratic, peaceful family of nations in the European Union and an anti-democratic, anti-environment and anti-social justice threat from the US. The UK Government must make that choice. I deeply regret that, at the moment, we have a UK Government that is refusing to make that choice, is kowtowing to the US Administration and appears unwilling to commit to what it calls a reset.”
“That case for rejoining applies whether we focus on Scotland’s future, the future of the rest of the UK or the future of the UK as a whole. In addition to that case for rejoining, we are faced with a new and very dangerous dynamic. For a long time, the UK has sought to face both directions—towards Europe and across the Atlantic. It has sought to be part of Europe and to treat the US as one of its most trustworthy partners. Under its new fascist Administration, the US can no longer be treated as a reliable, trustworthy partner. It is unleashing unilateral economic attacks on previous allies and direct security threats, and it is not treating a country such as Russia as the security threat that it is.”
“After the horrors of the second world war, the countries of Europe began to build the institutions that turned into the EU and created a different future for young people, one in which they could decide on their own terms and at their own time whether they wanted to travel to learn, to work, to play and to build a life and be part of a community together. Freedom of movement was one of the most astonishing political achievements in the post-war era, and it is a betrayal of the rights and interests of the next generation that they have had those freedoms taken away. In fact, they have had those freedoms—those liberties—taken away by people who, in many cases, have the nerve to call themselves libertarians. Those freedoms have been removed from young people. The case for rejoining the EU is very clear and, in my view, urgent.”
“I think that the strongest argument is the value of freedom of movement, because, as I have said before, for not just generations but centuries, the young people of the countries of Europe grew up knowing that their best chance of seeing another part of Europe was if their own Governments rounded them up, marched them into fields and ditches and made them slaughter one another in the service of a ruling class—very often the same ruling class across different countries on different sides of the various wars.”
“We would probably not have predicted then the unilateral trade war that has been sparked off by the US, but it is very clear that a trading bloc on the scale of the European Union has a degree of heft that the UK no longer has on its own. I am also happy to restate that case in relation to the voice of the EU on the world stage. In 2016, we were part of what had been for a long time one of the most progressive voices in the global climate debate, but we are no longer part of that. Whether one believes in a deregulated free market or a well-regulated, balanced market, having shared regulation across a larger market brings many advantages.”
“However, there is an additional dimension now, nine years on from that referendum. We do not just have Brexiteers and pro-Europeans. We now also have a cohort of politicians who argued just as vociferously as the rest of us that Brexit would be harmful, and, indeed, catastrophic for the UK and for Scotland, but who are now, let us be generous, merely resigned to it. They are simply not willing to be consistent with the position that they set out just nine years ago. I remind Mr Bibby that he was criticising others for inconsistency with a position from 50 years ago, but that is inconsistency with a position from just nine years ago. I am very happy to restate the case for membership of a modern democratic family of nations in the European Union in relation to the economic heft that comes from the size of the EU.”
“It is inevitable that a debate such as this will, to some extent, rehearse arguments from the run-up to 2016 and everything that has happened since. Some of us argued against Brexit back then and have not changed our position. We are very clear that the damage that we predicted has happened. We can point to it, see it and feel it in our economy, in our communities and in the rights and freedoms of our citizens having been reduced. Then there are those who argued for Brexit and are currently having to go through extraordinary mental gymnastics in order to deny the reality of that harm. With the best will in the world, Mr Kerr might as well have stood up and sung “Rule, Britannia!” for 10 minutes—it would have made as much sense as the speech that he just gave.”
“Once the dust had settled, great challenges lay ahead in Europe, which were: supporting the development of democracy in a great number of different countries; rebuilding and transforming economies; and making European neighbours who had been cut off from the European integration process partners and, ultimately, ready to become EU members. The European project, too, evolved greatly during that time. In 1992, the EU as we know it today was founded through the Maastricht treaty. In 2004, enlargement marked a watershed moment for post-1989 Europe with 10 new members joining the EU, and they have been followed by several more since then. I turn to the contributions that have been made to our country by people from those European accession states and, indeed, all those from overseas who have chosen to settle here and make Scotland their home.”
“If he is asking me whether I would support the strengthening of sanctions, the answer is simple: I would. I move on by borrowing from Germany’s former Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who said that we are living through a Zeitenwende—a turning point or crossroads. We have been here before. Relatively recently in our lifetimes, in 1989, change was under way after the fall of the Berlin wall. However, we have to be honest. That was a time of great hope and opportunities, but it was also a time of deep uncertainty about the future in Europe and internationally after the cold war. The experiences of the previous decades created fear about what the reaction to the communist dominoes falling in eastern Europe would be and what it would mean for the world.”
“I agree with the sentiment that the cabinet secretary expresses, but does he agree that that sentiment would be given fuller expression if the UK and the EU were to agree that Russian fossil fuel trading must be included in the sanctions regime? A company that is based in Glasgow is still making a profit from trading in Russian liquefied natural gas, which is within the rules of the current sanctions regime. Surely such a lethal business should be added to the sanctions. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, cabinet secretary. Angus Robertson: I certainly agree that sanctions should be respected and that any evidence of companies trying to get round those should be brought to light. [Interruption.] I hear Mr Harvie speaking from a sedentary position.”
“This week, Glasgow’s Pride announced that, in line with major pride events in England, political parties are no longer welcome to participate. That never happened even in the worst days of political homophobia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a direct result of political attacks on the rights of LGBTQ+ people, especially in relation to transphobia. Does the First Minister acknowledge that the political landscape as a whole has betrayed the trust of our community? Does he understand that there are Scottish Government employees who are currently living in fear that their workplaces will be subject to segregation policies, as has already happened in Parliament? What does the First Minister intend to do to begin restoring the trust that has been lost?”
“We must raise the funds necessary, including from the industry, to invest in the just transition that neither Government is yet providing. 16:57”
“It then spent decades more funding and seeding climate denial conspiracies around the world. More recently, it has moved to a position of climate delay and is abandoning its workforce. If it had invested a fraction of those vast profits in the transition and in the workforce to which it owes a moral responsibility, the situation would be very different. The industry has made negligible— Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Patrick Harvie: I do not have time. It has made negligible investment in renewables. The International Energy Agency has stated: “For the moment the oil and gas industry as a whole is a marginal force in the world’s transition to a clean energy system.” That was before the industry started to further slash investment in renewables and to double down on fossil fuels.”
“The energy strategy and just transition plan has been delayed for far too long, and it must include a strong presumption against new fossil fuel extraction. There must be urgency when it comes to the new climate plan, too. For far too long, the 2030 target was slipping out of reach as a result of inaction over the first 15 years of this journey. If the track record of the past 15 years is repeated in the final 20 years of the transition, we will fail; however, we need not fail if we apply the urgency that is needed now. Finally, and most crucially, we need accountability of the fossil fuel industry, which has made vast profits, including from the North Sea, over many years. It spent decades covering up what it knew about the climate change that it was causing.”
“In fact, when he said, “There’s quite a few scientists that say we don’t need to get to net zero by 2050”, he was, of course, unable to name any. He also said: “There’s no scientific rationale for choosing 2050 as the point to which we should reach net zero.” That is utterly at odds with the evidence that the scientific community has provided from around the world. What do we need in order to reach net zero through a just transition? First, we need political leadership. That means not just backing targets but not blocking the actions that are necessary. Far too many politicians have voted for targets and then blocked the actions that are necessary, whether on transport, heat, land use or something else. We need urgency from the Scottish Government.”
“Further, he closed that debate with these words: “we are confident that it lays the foundations for a climate change plan that will support innovation, create jobs and use technology, as well as addressing the undeniable climate change emergency that we face.”—[Official Report, 25 September 2019; c 103-4.] It is inconceivable that a member of the Conservative Party would make such a speech now, railing as they do against renewable infrastructure, whether that is transmission infrastructure, storage infrastructure or anything else. Further, it now looks as though the future direction of travel is even worse, with Andrew Bowie, the acting shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, openly describing the IPCC as biased. Today, the Conservatives say that they want an evidence-based debate. Mr Bowie had no evidence for what he said.”