Scottish Government accused of 'sidelining' climate action
Under former first minister Humza Yousaf, the Scottish Government announced plans to abandon the interim target of reducing emissions by 75 per cent by the end of the decade, accepting the goal was 'out of reach', but remaining committed to reaching net zero by 2045.
Instead, ministers pledged a five-yearly cycle of carbon budgets, which aim to wind down emission more steadily and be more resistant to outside forces like unseasonable cold snaps driving up heating demand.
Climate Change Secretary Gillian Martin stressed Scotland will not 'sacrifice people's health or wealth' to reach net zero.
READ MORE: John Swinney tears into 'weak man' Anas Sarwar at FMQs
However, climate campaigners criticised the move and said ministers were 'slowing down' action to tackle climate change.
The Scottish Greens also criticised the announcement, and said the SNP were 'shying away' from taking action.
According to the Scottish Government's proposals, between 2026 and 2030 emissions should be 57 per cent lower than the 1990 baseline – 18 points lower than the initial target.
The target between 2031 and 2025 is a 68 per cent reduction from the baseline, and 80 per cent for the following five years.
By 2041 to 2045, the final years of the plan, emissions should have reduced by 94 per cent, with the aim remaining for Scotland to reach net zero by this time.
(Image: Andrew Milligan) The Scottish Government has said the remaining 6 per cent would amount to around 24 mega tonnes of carbon emissions.
'Scotland is now halfway to our 2045 climate change target and is ahead of the UK as a whole in reducing long-term emissions,' Martin said.
'These carbon budgets will set clear limits on emissions for the coming decades in line with the independent advice of the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC).
'When we publish our draft Climate Change Plan later this year, it will set out the policies needed to continue to reduce our emissions and meet our first three carbon budget targets.'
Martin added that the plan 'will not ask the impossible of people'.
READ MORE: Israeli strikes kill 72 Palestinians, 29 waiting for aid trucks
'While we welcome the UK CCC's advice on how to stay within these limits, as they make clear, it is always for Scotland to decide whether those policies are right for us,' she said.
'This means, for example, that we will chart our own path on forestry, going further than the CCC suggest.'
She added that the Scottish Government won't adopt the CC recommendations on agriculture and peatland and instead 'meet our targets in a way which works for rural Scotland, including supporting and protecting our iconic livestock industries'.
The budgets will be voted on by MSPs and, if passed, will be used to inform the plan.
The announcement was welcomed by WWF Scotland, but the group urged the Government to commit to 'strong action' to meet the targets.
Claire Daly, the group's head of policy and advocacy, said: 'Future generations cannot afford any more missed climate targets, and this carbon budget must be set for success with strong policies to reduce emissions.'
Climate campaigners Friends of the Earth (FoE) Scotland said the Scottish Government's announcement showed ministers 'slowing down at precisely the moment we should be speeding up'.
Caroline Rance, head of campaigns, said: 'The Scottish Government is in this dire position because of years of insufficient action by Ministers to tackle the climate crisis.
'The original climate targets could and should have been met. This lack of political will continues in Cabinet with a host of key plans and policies sidelined in the past year.'
READ MORE: Why won't the BBC report on Israel's nuclear weapons?
Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said: 'This is a deeply troubling announcement from the SNP, and takes us another step away from evidence-based climate policy.
'We've known for years that ambitious targets alone aren't enough to tackle the climate emergency, but that means we should be ramping up action to protect our planet, not watering down the targets.'
'We are in a climate emergency, and we need to start acting like it, so that future generations don't look back and ask why Scotland abandoned them when we had the opportunity to fix things,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
33 minutes ago
- The National
Will a group form to take forward constitutional convention plans?
READ MORE: John Swinney to host independence debate at SNP National Council in Perth However, with the petition for decolonisation now with the United Nations, it is up to every person who has the interests of an independent Scotland at heart to meet the challenges that face us. We need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt to the UN that we want independence and above all, that we are able and willing to form a new Scotland and its institutions in our own image. To do so, we need to call for and form a Scottish constitutional convention now and not at some distant time when it is suitable to some faceless civil servants who are doing it because they have been pushed into it by their English masters. We need answers to a great number of questions before independence and not after it, and above all we need to know what sort of country are we going to be setting up so that everybody is singing from the same sheet. With such a convention we can answer fully the question about currency, fiscal needs, the institutions et al of our country. Then the English Unionists won't be able to trip us up when it comes to a referendum, which is bound to happen when the UN agrees that we are a colony of England. READ MORE: SNP now seem content to manage Scotland's decline within the Union When the convention has been called we will be one more step along the way towards independence and it will make it harder for a prime minister of England to stand in our way. It is important to have representatives from all walks of life involved with the convention. Until then we are at the mercy of Downing Street and the English establishment. As there have been a reasonable number of letters here on the topic of calling for a convention, I say it is time we put that rhetoric into action. Effectively, I would say that we need to form a group of competent people who have the acumen to take the notion of a convention to the next step and get things up and running. Until then, nothing is going to happen and we are liable to remain just another colony of England. Who amongst the readers are capable of writing reports, asking important questions and knowing how to arrange meetings with groups and associations? Alexander Potts Kilmarnock GOD knows how much 'zooming' and 'teaming' has been done in the name of the independence struggle in recent years in lieu of face-to-face, cheek-by-jowl forums. If you add to that emails, texting, twittering and blogging then is not difficult to discern the principal reason that both esprit de corps, cohesion and solidarity remain sub-optimal in the movement and in society in general, much to the satisfaction of those who are rightly frightened of 'gatherings' of enthusiasts. I had the privilege to attend the summer conference of the Independence Forum Scotland (IFS) in Perth on Saturday and the way it was convened and conducted greatly advanced my grasp of several topics, from the cultural to nuances of energy policy, mainly rendered to me by folks sitting in close proximity to me. I could ask them about matters that have perplexed me and vice-versa. READ MORE: 'Scottish cringe' persists despite evidence of our distinctive culture I received tuition augmented by a three-dimensional 'model' involving non-verbal gesturing and the vast array of the facial expressions that evolution has come up with to facilitate both communication but also bonding among homo sapiens. The whole day was 'value for time t hat the vast majority of Zoom and Teams encounters fail to provide. The promised but not-now-to-be-delivered independence convention is yet another strategic failure by the SNP leadership to engage with the wider body of the kirk despite entreaties by their own rank-and-file and nearly everyone else and their auntie. It was suggested that two brief, cheap residential independence 'academy' weekend events for activists and prospective candidates could define the core curriculum and perhaps advance the principle reconciliation between friends who collaborated for several decades. This initiative received an enthusiastic response among among many quarters but a very tepid response from the celebrated, but as yet ineffective, party 'strategists'. In short, what we need is the microcosm of the IFS transformed to the macrocosm of a convention embedded in a cultural nationwide movement open to the man in the street, young and old. I fear it is too late for that now, so blundering on will be the tactics. A patriotic SNP leadership could have made such a big difference. There may be yet time! Dr Andrew Docherty Selkirk MICHAEL Shanks thinks that Scotland will lose out on jobs if we do not support nuclear reactors (Shanks 'won't apologise' for GB Energy funding raid, Jun 16). We are better served with renewables, as nuclear requires small numbers of engineers at a single site whereas renewables can be very small and spread out, along with maintenance staff all over the place. Thus enabling rural and island communities have well-paid jobs and not having the young people of these places leaving. In the same edition of the paper, North Yell screams out at what small island and rural folk can do if the impetus is nurtured and admired (Islanders borrowed £8.3m to build own wind farm – and it's paying off big time). M Ross Aviemore
The National
34 minutes ago
- The National
Scottish Labour is a fiction, nothing more than a branding
The SNP have urged Anas Sarwar to whip Labour's Scottish MPs to vote against the Government's planned benefits cuts, which the British Government's own analysis estimates will push 250,000 disabled and chronically ill people into poverty, including 50,000 children. However, disability rights campaign group Disability Rights UK, anti-poverty charity and think tank Trussel, and economics think tank WPI Economics all calculate that the Government's analysis significantly underestimates the number of disabled people who will be pushed into poverty as a consequence of these cuts. They believe that the true number is in excess of 400,000. Thousands of disabled people are expected to lose their entitlement to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the main benefit for disabled people in England and Wales, under Labour's plan to change the eligibility criteria for the benefit. The plan will introduce a new eligibility requirement which will mean that only those who score a minimum of four points in at least one activity will be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. To be eligible for PIP, claimants must score a minimum of eight points assessed on the help they need across a range of daily living activities such as food preparation, bathing and showering, toileting, dressing, eating, and taking medication. Many people make up the eight points by scoring one or two across different categories, but under the new plans only those scoring four in one category will be eligible. If a claimant does not score four in a single category, the points they score in other categories will be discounted. Note that this change does nothing to help disabled people into work, the stated aim of the Government's cuts; it merely reclassifies disabled people as no longer being disabled for the purposes of eligibility for PIP. The needs of disabled people remain the same. (Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA) One of the more pernicious effects of this change follows from the fact that PIP is a so-called passport benefit – eligibility for other benefits depends on eligibility for PIP. Carers Allowance is paid to those who care for a disabled person in receipt of PIP, or Attendance Allowance, its equivalent for retired people. If the disabled person loses their eligibility for PIP, eligibility for Carer's Allowance is lost too. Far from providing an incentive to the disabled person to find work, this will make it far more difficult for them to cope with daily living and far more difficult to get into work. Disability campaigners have warned that the cuts will not save the Government money as they will simply force disabled people, whose very real needs remain unchanged, to turn to other services such as the already over-stretched NHS and adult social services. Any politician with a social conscience or a basic understanding of disability should vigorously oppose these harmful and damaging cuts, but with the honourable exception of Alloa and Grangemouth MP Brian Leishman, Labour's Scottish contingent in Westminster are a supine bunch of careerists whose contribution to Commons debates consists of attacking the Scottish Government on devolved issues. Of course Anas Sarwar, the nominal leader of the Labour party in Scotland, should instruct Labour's Scottish MPs to vote against these cruel and counterproductive cuts, but he won't, because he too is a supine careerist, installed in his current job by the right wing of the Labour party precisely because he'd do Keir Starmer's bidding. Sarwar defends the cuts, because he believes what Starmer tells him to believe. But even if Sarwar finds a backbone and opposes the cuts, he has no authority over Labour's Scottish MPs in Westminster and no means of enforcing how they vote in the Commons. "Scottish Labour" is a political fiction, nothing more than a branding exercise. Labour MPs elected in Scotland are subject to the UK Labour whip. They do not constitute a cohesive voting bloc in the Commons. They are part and parcel of the UK Parliamentary Labour Party. Anas Sarwar couldn't whip up a cream cake, never mind Labour's Scottish MPs. At First Minister's Questions today, John Swinney tore into Sarwar's attacks on him as "the performance of a weak man" after asking two rather desultory questions about Alexander Dennis moving bus production to England and suggesting that Swinney's leadership was under threat. Sarwar accused Swinney of pressing the "big panic independence button" to "save his skin", after the First Minister made a speech on his desire for self-determination this week. (Image: Andrew Milligan) Swinney retorted: "Isn't it interesting that Mr Sarwar's interest in the workers of Alexander Dennis lasted two questions and then he gets on to his usual posturing in this Parliament of little substance that is before us. Israel discovers war crimes Meanwhile, Israel has suddenly discovered that launching missiles into hospitals is a war crime after an Iranian missile struck a hospital in the southern Israeli city of Be'er Sheva. Iranian state media has claimed that the missile targeted a military site next to the hospital and not the medical facility itself. Israel's deputy foreign affairs minister Sharren Haskel has called Iran's strike on the hospital "deliberate" and "criminal", while the Israeli health minister Uriel Buso said it was a war crime. But apparently, it's perfectly fine for Israel to bomb hospitals in Gaza on the supposed grounds that they are targeting Hamas operations in or near the hospital.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The Attorney General should not have a veto on military action
The role of the attorney general has always been a curious hybrid: part-jurist, part-politician. He is the government's foremost legal advisor but also a member of the political Cabinet. He is not one of the thousands of anonymous (and apolitical, at least on paper) Civil Service lawyers offering cautious legal guidance behind closed doors. No, the attorney general is, or ought to be, someone who understands the weight of democratic mandate, who sits at the Cabinet table not just to interpret the law but to help the elected government navigate it in service of the people's will. This role, by its nature, requires a certain dexterity: legal acumen, certainly, but also political courage. Some attorneys general have leaned heavily into the legal: aloof, abstracted, priestly. Others, more controversially, have seen their political duty as primary: a jurist who bends with the winds of popular sovereignty. I count myself unapologetically in the latter camp. I saw my role as AG as elected representative first, bound by my promise to the people and my party. My duty was to provide lawful pathways, not legalistic roadblocks, to implement the prime minister's democratic agenda. But what we have now in the present Attorney General is something quite different: a Whitehall legalist who appears to have mistaken his office for a courtroom and forgotten that he serves in Cabinet, not from chambers in Lincoln's Inn. He behaves not as the attorney to the Government but as a robed inquisitor, as a champion of international law in its most unrooted, abstract, and often contradictory form. This is not just about his conflicts with Cabinet colleagues. We're now in the territory of deliberate obstruction: policy sabotage masquerading as legal rectitude. From attempting to reshape the constitutional role of First Treasury Counsel by installing an ideological legal inner circle, to smearing those of us who are ECHR sceptics as 'Nazis ', he is transforming the Law Officers' Department into a vehicle for Left-wing judicial activism. The consequences are already dire. Most recently, it is reported that the Attorney General has moved to block Britain from joining the US in potential military action in Iran. This, allegedly, on legal grounds. Of course, the legal dimension matters. No serious person would argue otherwise. But law in this context is not absolute; it is interpretive. And when the Attorney General starts using legal advice as a veto on foreign policy, overriding the collective wisdom of Cabinet, the intelligence agencies, the military, and elected ministers, then the tail has started wagging the dog. To be clear, under international law, military force is permissible in narrow circumstances: UN Security Council authorisation, host-state consent, or collective self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In 2018, we invoked the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to justify strikes in Syria. There is precedent, there is scope, and there is nuance. Looking at Iran's sustained aggression; its funding and arming of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and a constellation of Shiite militias across the region; its direct attacks on Israeli civilians and cities; its escalating nuclear programme with range capabilities stretching to the UK, it is entirely arguable that collective self-defence is not just viable, but urgent. And yet, we are told that the Attorney General finds this too fraught: too difficult. That under no circumstances could UK participation include striking Iran itself. This, while Iranian missiles crash into civilian neighbour-hoods, rockets rain down on hospitals and innocent Israelis are killed. It would be comic if it weren't so dangerous. To tie the hands of government in the face of tyranny is not moral clarity; it is moral cowardice dressed in judicial robes. This Attorney General is not elected. He, personally, holds no democratic mandate. Yet his advice – shaded, it seems, by a particular worldview that sees Western action as the problem and our enemies as misunderstood – is now shaping the limits of Britain's global standing. If the Prime Minister chooses to follow such counsel blindly, we risk becoming spectators to history rather than participants in its making. In moments of crisis, the question is not simply 'Is this legal?' but also 'Is this right, necessary, and proportionate?' Good legal advice answers all four questions, not just one in isolation. Right now, Britain's voice on the world stage is being stifled by a cautious legalism that views foreign policy through the rearview mirror. The Attorney General's role is not to moralise, but to advise. It is the Prime Minister who must decide. History will not forgive us for dithering while our allies act. Nor will it forgive those who mistook paralysis for principle. The attorney general is supposed to safeguard the law, not sanctify it at the expense of sovereignty, security, and strategic clarity. If this Attorney General cannot understand that, then perhaps he is in the wrong job.
