We are currently enjoying life under Britain’s ‘Greenest Government ever’.
However, that adage does not belong to the UK Government that prematurely made that boast but to the Scottish Government that wants to step away from being Britain’s ‘anything’ if it can get the chance.
As strong as the SNP’s environmental credentials are (and I know one co-editor who would disagree with that line alone, with good reason), there is always room for improvement, as a press release from the Scottish Green Party reminded us this weekend (or at least reminded the few who read it since no newspapers that I noticed actually picked up the story and ran with it).
The press release includes the paragraph:
While SNP Ministers continue to claim 90% of the income from oil and gas in Scottish waters, they have failed to take the corresponding 90% of the emissions from these offshore industries into account. These so-called “unallocated emissions” have risen since 1990, and Scotland’s real emissions have therefore fallen by far less than claimed by Scottish Ministers.
Richard Thomson has already stepped in with a rebuttal, a rebuttal that I believe rather dances around the issue. My understanding of Richard’s point is that the Scottish Government shouldn’t count these offshore oil emissions within Scotland’s world-leading 42% target because this is not a devolved area. So much for “It’s Scotland’s Oil”.
This may or may not be a technically valid point, I don’t know what the scope of ‘Scotland’s emissions’ is once you dig down into the detail but the fact remains that there are emissions not being counted (incidentally, that is for an exploration area that need not be extended, another area where SNP environmental credentials look decidedly flimsy).
There is a similar problem for flights in and out of the UK. As an example, if you fly from New York to Edinburgh, then one of Scotland, the USA or the UK should include the emissions from that flight in their national statistics. No countries in that situation currently do.
The SNP is seemingly quite happy to take an accolade that may be technically true but does not actually go as far as it should to solve the problem at hand. It is statistical fiddling while Scotland burns and is to take NIMBY-ism and turn it on its head. The on display IMBY-ism, for want of a better FoLA*, is to accept emissions off the coast and overhead just to tick a box. It is much easier to fight Westminster for £300m of Climate Change money than it is to fight for the right to count your country’s emissions as your own.
Britain’s Greenest Government ever, yes, but the ducking and diving has to end if the SNP wants to kick on and be genuine world leaders, as promised.
* FoLA – Four Letter Acronym
(Also blogged by Rob Edwards)
#1 by Indy on November 15, 2010 - 2:20 pm
So are you saying that you want the SNP Government to take responsiblity for emmissions from the Scottish sector of the Continental Shelf even though they have no legal powers, no control of policy and no direct access to the revenues? (Incidentally the press release is wrong – the SNP doesn’t claim 90 per cent of revenues from the Scottish sector, it claims 100 per cent of revenues. The confusion may arise from the fact that around 90 per cent of oil revenues are in the Scottish sector, with a smaller proportion of gas. We would of course have to gain control of the Scottish sector of the UK Continental Shel before any of those revenues accrued to a Scottish Exchequer).
Perhaps you would also like them to take responsibility for Trident’s various environmental indignities while they are at it?
#2 by James on November 15, 2010 - 3:55 pm
Indy, as you point out, SNP Ministers say that 90% of North Sea oil and gas have been extracted from Scottish waters. That’s what the release says too.
The point here is you can’t say you’re going to build a green economy and keep relying on oil. An independent Scotland would have to deal with the pollution, not just accept the revenue, and an administration that accepted the climate science wouldn’t be backing new deepwater drilling.
#3 by Lost Highlander on November 15, 2010 - 2:53 pm
I wonder just how much it would cost to develop the means to capture and transport the gas burned off by the oil platforms.
But that is not in the SNPs pervue that is westminster which does not spend on developing the North sea its happy just to take the money earned. No investment no change in CO2 produced. The Scottish goverment is not allowed to invest so should it get the blame of course not. Allow Scotland to control its wealth and then with the ability to act let it act. I suspect that there would be great improvements.
#4 by Dubbieside on November 15, 2010 - 3:11 pm
Typical Green rubbish.
The Scottish Government has no control over the North Sea oil rigs nor does it get any income from these rigs.
So the Greens policy is blame the SNP for things it does not control. When will we see the Green press release blaming the SNP for Trident on the Clyde, or maybe why are the SNP not closing the Nuclear power stations in Scotland, and by the way what are the SNP proposing to do about the nuclear waste from these power stations.
I am surprised that you wonder why no newspaper has reported this, given the main stream media rush to print anything it can to criticize the SNP. Presumably even they saw this rubbish for what it was.
#5 by James on November 15, 2010 - 3:57 pm
SNP MEPs voted for new deepwater drilling. Alex Salmond still believes Scotland’s future can be built on oil. If they want the revenue they should be ready to claim the pollution that comes with it. It’s not complicated.
#6 by Richard Thomson on November 15, 2010 - 4:35 pm
James – which government has control at present over the regulation of oil and gas in the UK?
#7 by Jeff on November 15, 2010 - 4:45 pm
Richard,
How can Scotland reasonably claim it has a world-leading climate target if it’s not including all of the nation’s emissions?
#8 by Richard Thomson on November 15, 2010 - 5:04 pm
Because it doesn’t have control over those emissions, and the target is world leading over the many other aspects of the environment for which it is resposnsible.
When Scotland has control over the regulation of the oil industry, it will be legitimate to count these emissions against the Scottish Goverment. Frankly, until then, you might as well castigate Aberdeenshire Council, or Belhelvie Community Council for their failure to counter these emissions. After all, they’ve got as much say in the matter as our devolved government has.
#9 by Jeff on November 15, 2010 - 10:08 pm
Richard,
I have no quarrel with your argument that the Scottish Government shouldn’t seek to reduce emissions that are outwith its control but I do have problems with overreaching rhetoric and manipulation of comparisons on such a serious issue. The SNP regularly boasts about it’s world-leading target. The fact that the Scottish Government isn’t on track to meet that target is by-the-by in this instance but Scotland’s 42% is only higher than the 40% target of other countries (e.g. Norway) in number alone, not in substance.
The Norwegian target of 40% includes its offshore industries and the Scottish target of 42% excludes ours. That, therefore, is not a fair comparison and yet the “world-leading” adjective, so often used by Salmond, suggests that it is. Were Scotland to take into account these offshore industries then our target of 42% actually becomes closer to 33%. A good figure but nothing special in an international context. SImilarly, if the Norwegian target was to exclude offshore exploits then it would increase to ~48%, easily outstripping Scotland’s 42.
So you can enjoy the warm glow of being technically correct but surely the big picture from a strictly Scottish point of view is how many emissions is our nation floating up into the ozone layer. True leadership would dictate that Alex Salmond should work on reducing the emissions he has control over but discuss ALL emissions sitting within and above Scotland’s land and offshore borders.
I am not arguing for the Scottish Government to seek to control areas that are not devolved to it but I am arguing for it to stop claiming to be leading the world when that is patently not the case.
#10 by Richard Thomson on November 16, 2010 - 12:51 am
Jeff,
FWIW, as I stated in my original blog, I think there’s a reasonable point to be made about these ‘unallocated’ emissions. You’ve gone on to make it yourself when you say that the Scottish Government should be prepared to discuss all emissions. However, it remains the case that it’s hardly reasonable to criticise someone or something for that which is entirely outwith their control, which is my beef here.
I do have problems with overreaching rhetoric and manipulation of comparisons on such a serious issue.
So do I, which is why I felt that the Greens’ press release would be none the worse for being laid out on a butchers’ block. As I say, there was a reasonable point to be made in there, but sadly, it was obscured by their overhet and contrived swipes at the SNP. Nothing new there, then.
Indy, I think, nails it when he points out to James that you may well take the position that we could unilaterally give up oil and to hell with the consequences. The SNP doesn’t take that position. From a personal point of view, I’d love to hear how the Greens would reduce Scotland’s CO2 emissions, either with or without control over the North Sea, and to explain their strategy, assuming it exists, for transferring nearly 500,000 oil and gas workers into the renewables sector, while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels for all uses. You’ll perhaps understand if I refrain from holding my breath while I wait, though.
#11 by cynicalHighlander on November 15, 2010 - 4:52 pm
Oil Producers taken from Global Oil Supplies as Reported by EIA’s International Petroleum Monthly for November 2010
Using Patrick’s theory Nigeria should be paying for America to use its oil a total nonsense but coming from someone who thinks that sailing across the atlantic, using the most poluting form of transport, rather than flying what can one expect.
#12 by neil craig on November 15, 2010 - 3:31 pm
You know perfectly well that all this CO2 emissions stuff is a total & complete lie.
#13 by Indy on November 15, 2010 - 4:51 pm
James as a Green you may well take the position that we could unilaterally give up oil and to hell with the consequences. The SNP doesn’t take that position. There’s very little point in arguing about that since neither one of us is ever going to shift.
What we do say is that Scotland’s renewable resources are the equivalent of striking oil all over again and represent a massive economic benefit as well as an environmental benefit. We want the Scottish people to get the economic benefit of that resource, as well as the envirionmental benefit. That’s cause we are nationalists, not Greens.
But that’s also why you can depend on the SNP never to waver on nuclear power but to stick to our guns on putting all our money on renewables so that when the oil runs out, as it eventually will, we will be swimming not sinking.
#14 by James on November 15, 2010 - 5:32 pm
Well, we agree in principle on renewables, then, although I’m sure you have a higher opinion of what’s been achieved since 2007 than I do. But I’m curious about the idea that Greens don’t want Scots to get the economic benefits of renewables. The now-abandoned Scottish Water Bill would have provided opportunities for amendments to allow just that, as I understand it, and we were looking forward to that. It didn’t look like a bad proposal, to be clear, just one that could have gone further.
#15 by Boorach on November 15, 2010 - 5:34 pm
This is the major policy issue I disagree with the SNP on. I wish just one of the parties would finally state that they do not support the “emissions” (AKA Co2) nonsense.
#16 by Indy on November 15, 2010 - 6:21 pm
We could obviously achieve a heck of a lot more with full control of energy policy. It’s a fluke that promotion of renewable energy is devolved – if they had known how important it would become it would have been reserved. And it is a nonsense that we can only stop new nuclear power plants by using planning powers. We spend so much time in Scotland trying to find ways to be allowed to act in our own interests and for the wider good which are permissable within the terms of the Scotland Act, it is simply ridiculous and if all that human energy was devoted to imagining the future without the constraints we have to work under we could achieve a lot more.
#17 by Dubbieside on November 15, 2010 - 7:21 pm
James at 3.57pm
You are correct “it is not complicated”
If they want the revenue they should be ready to claim the pollution that comes with it. It’s not complicated.
I think that it has been pointed out that the SNP derive no revenue from North Sea Oil. What the Greens want is, and are claiming, that the SNP should accept all the consequences of extracting the oil even though they get none of the revenue.
Even by Green standards that is absurd.
You are correct though, the SNP want the revenue, just think of the amount of proper worthwhile environmental projects that money could fund in Scotland if Scotland controlled that revenue.
Jeff at 4.45
As has been pointed out by Richard you cannot and should not be held accountable for emissions that you do not control. While what the SNP has achieved environmentally will never be enough for some people, what it has achieved with the limited levers at its disposal, is a dam sight better than the majority of countrys who have all the economic levers at their disposal.
#18 by Dubbieside on November 15, 2010 - 7:25 pm
Jeff
“SNP fiddles while Scotland burns”
Have you ever thought of getting a job as a headline writer with the Scotsman.
That is about their standard. When can we look forward to the first “SNP accused” headline from you?
#19 by Bill Pickford on November 15, 2010 - 9:33 pm
What a load of enviro-loon drivel!
The climate-change scam is so cock-eyed only brainwashed politicos and vested interests give it any credence.
What Scotland needs is to forget this ‘green’ future, sink some deep mines and build new coal-fired power stations – maybe then we will have energy cheap enough so that old folk won’t die of hypothermia.
#20 by cynicalHighlander on November 15, 2010 - 10:20 pm
Can you explain this then if its not being caused by releasing carbon back into the atmoshere faster (million times) than it had been stored by natural process.
#21 by somepapfaedundee on November 15, 2010 - 10:52 pm
ha, ha, ha…
wait you’re serious!
lol, with friends like Greens eh?
Weren’t the Scottish Govt (or Salmond) criticised by some for precisely the reasons that they *didn’t* have control of much of these emissions, and that they included aviation & shipping emissions. Now their ‘friends’ in at least advancing emisisons targets are trying to construct an attack out of it. Nice.
I don’t see anything substantially different in the Scottish Greens manifesto compared to what the SNP are actually doing. In other words, they say if they were in power in Scotland they’d reduce Scotland’s emissions (in so far as it falls with in their jurisdiction), and seek full control of all energy related policy for the Scottish parliament. I’m afraid you’ll have to point me at the difference.
Perhaps people should stop trying to steer the SNP; to devo-max, or the green agenda, or whatever every Tom, Dick and Harry ‘s favourite policy is.
Perhaps the Greens should try to convince people of the merits of their manifesto as a whole instead of manufacturing targets at which to snipe. Is Green the new LibDem?