The Net Zero target and the 2040 interim target for a 90% reduction on 1990 levels are both consistent with our advice from 2019,3 which was based on a linear reduction in emissions to Net Zero in 2045. The 2030 interim target for a 75% reduction is more ambitious than our recommendation, which was for a 70% reduction. The 2020 target, which has been achieved, was in line with our 2017 advice on the Scottish Climate Bill.

We therefore recommend that the path for annual targets through the 2020s is drawn not based on the 56% target (which was on the old methodology) but on a translation of that 2020 target to the new inventory basis (i.e. 48.5%). This is appropriate, as these targets will be assessed against the new inventory methodology. The new recommended annual targets are given in Table 4.2. These should be updated even if it requires an adjustment to the Act to allow it, as without this change these already
challenging annual targets will be made even more difficult to achieve, simply as an artefact of accounting. We also recommend that future advice on the level of the targets is requested in time to avoid a similar situation occurring again.
...
Our updated analysis indicates that it may be possible to slightly outperform the existing 2040 interim target and 2045 Net Zero target. However, given substantial risks to meeting the 2030 interim target, the anticipated outperformance of targets around 2040 may instead be needed to compensate for underperformance against targets around 2030. There also remains considerable uncertainty in these projections, for example on the extent of GHG removals in Scotland and on the emissions estimation methodology that will be used at the time of later targets.

https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Scottish-Emissions-Targets-first-five-yearly-review.pdf

Liz Lloyd
@eliz_lloyd

Ahead of the expected announcement on Scotland’s climate targets a little context to where 75% came from, why it was always described as “stretching”, what has happened and the questions it raises

The original @thecccuk recommendation was for Scotland to reach net zero by 2045. They didn’t propose a 2030 target but when asked by Scotgov said it should be on a straight line to 2045. That would have been 70% which was what Scotgov proposed.

Scotgov was a minority govt and all parties pushed to increase the target. The consensus became 75% (the Greens wanted 85%). I remember @strathearnrose making clear to parties that the target went beyond @theCCCuk advice on what could be done but needed consensus to pass the bill

That’s why it’s always been stretching. Scotland’s progress also depends in part (but not wholly) on the UK net zero trajectory and UK Carbon budget. These were not designed or adjusted to take account of Holyrood’s decision to go for a 75% target

Revisions to the inventory used to calculate the baseline also made the challenge harder as did new research on what amount could be attributed to negative emission technologies during this period.

None of this is to get away from questions on whether SG could have gone further or faster but the background is part of why the Scotgov is where it is today.

Recent Fiscal Commission work highlights the scale of investment needed. This should raise questions about whether the Scottish Parliament’s responsibilities in this area are matched by its fiscal means (they are not) and whether the next UKG will do anything about that

Climate was not an area of policy when parliament was established in 1999. It just wasn’t thought about. The scale and pace of investment required by public sector and in public goods/fairness of transition goes well beyond Scottish Parl capital borrowing powers

Resetting the path to 2045 does not ease the pressure on all parties and both Govt’s to drive credible climate action in industry, heating, transport and farming but could it open space for a more constructive and successful discussion in parliament on how and with what money?

Question for all parties in Holyrood is if they will find a science based consensus and the means to deliver or use a legislative opportunity to play pre-election politics. Particularly as for the first time Labour might think they’ll be in office when policies need delivered.