{"id":462,"date":"2016-06-10T11:17:31","date_gmt":"2016-06-10T11:17:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/?p=462"},"modified":"2016-08-30T11:44:43","modified_gmt":"2016-08-30T11:44:43","slug":"brexit-and-combating-climate-change-in-scotland","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/2016\/06\/10\/brexit-and-combating-climate-change-in-scotland\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Brexit\u2019 and Combating Climate Change in Scotland"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

By Joanna Wright<\/h1>\n

MSc Carbon Management 2015-2016<\/h1>\n<\/header>\n
\n

\"bojesen_brexit\"<\/a><\/p>\n

[Source:\u00a0http:\/\/www.voxeurop.eu\/en\/content\/news-brief\/4931129-brexit-would-put-europe-stake]<\/em><\/p>\n

The front page of The Economist this week<\/a> (February 27th<\/sup>-March 4th<\/sup>2016) proclaims \u201cBrexit: Bad for Britain, Europe and the West\u201d.<\/em> Turn tothe Leader<\/a> on page 9 and it is argued that not only would Brexit be damaging to the UK\u2019s economy and security, it would also have wider European and global ramifications that \u201cgo beyond economics\u201d.\u00a0 <\/em>Whilst examples of these wider impacts are given, the article makes no reference to Brexit and climate change.\u00a0 There is, however, considerable debate, elsewhere.<\/p>\n

Carbon Brief<\/a> is a UK-based website currently tracking the opinions of key players in energy and climate change<\/a>, in addition to other influential views that reference these topics in relation to the 23rd<\/sup> June vote. As of 27th<\/sup> February 2016, the tracker had twenty entries; four \u2018leavers\u2019 and sixteen arguing that Britain should stay in the EU. \u00a0Whilst the quotes from leavers focus on the perceived damage to the UK from EU energy policies, if challenged with regard to action on climate change, they may perhaps choose to focus on the fact that (in theory) the Climate Change Act 2008<\/a> commits the UK to reducing greenhouse gas emissions irrespective of EU membership status.<\/p>\n

However, the \u2018remainers\u2019 are more vocal on this, with some interesting examples of cross-party consensus.\u00a0 For example, Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP,<\/a> is quoted as saying \u201cOf course it is the treatment of catastrophic climate change which hangs over everything else we\u2019re doing to protect our environment\u2026.If we join forces with other countries, strengthening the EU-wide rules on carbon emissions that are already in place, then we have a chance of keeping future generations safe\u201d.<\/em>\u00a0 <\/em>Ed Miliband, MP and former leader of The Labour Party<\/a> argues that \u201cWe are two per cent of global emissions, the EU is 20 per cent of global emissions. Let us not fall for the myth that somehow we will be more influential and more powerful outside the European Union\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

Whilst the arguments of those campaigning to stay in the EU are compelling, there is an interesting twist when considering the potential implications of Brexit for the continued unity of the UK.\u00a0 Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland\u2019s First Minister, has warned recently<\/a> that a vote to leave the EU against Scotland\u2019s wishes would \u201calmost certainly\u201d<\/em> trigger another Independence referendum.\u00a0 Writing in The Guardian<\/a>, Martin Kettle is right to point out that even if Britain leaves the EU, there are many hurdles facing any renewed bid for Scottish Independence.\u00a0 These include the fact that it is only the UK parliament that has the power to call a second referendum and whether or not it would be possible to retain the pound and not commit to the euro and the strict borrowing limits that go with eurozone membership.\u00a0 However, it is interesting to consider what Brexit, and a successful subsequent campaign for Scottish Independence, might mean for climate change policy and action in Scotland.<\/p>\n

Scotland has failed, so far, to meet its annual climate change targets<\/a>.\u00a0 Whilst the aspirational nature of the targets can still be applauded and progress reporting has been affected by changes in baseline data reporting<\/a>, measures introduced by the Conservative government, since election in May 2015, including the ending of subsidies for onshore wind<\/a>, are arguably exacerbating the challenge of achieving an annual target, which would hopefully provide an encouraging and motivating success story.<\/p>\n

The Scottish Government has a target to deliver the equivalent of at least 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables by 2020<\/a>, with a significant expansion in onshore wind arguably an easy and early win in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland.\u00a0 Representing the Scottish renewable energy industry, Scottish Renewables undertook an analysis in 2015 <\/a>and concluded that Scotland will fall short of its 2020 target by 13 percent, unless new price guarantee contracts are awarded to onshore and offshore wind projects.\u00a0 Speaking only last month, Nicola Sturgeon described the UK government\u2019s cuts to renewable energy subsidies as \u201can absolute, total disgrace\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the short term, and subject to funding (a significant challenge even prior to the recent drop in oil revenues), Independence would enable the Scottish Government to override these decisions and to provide a greater level of support to renewable energy projects in Scotland.\u00a0 However, looking longer term, beyond Scotland, and at the more challenging aspects of climate change mitigation, including the significant need for technological innovation<\/a>, we are arguably \u2018better together\u2019 (Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU).\u00a0 To quote Julia Slingo, the Met Office\u2019s Chief Scientist<\/a> \u201cThe more we can be integrated in how we view what our science needs and our policy needs and our understanding of the risks that we face from climate change, the better our response will be\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

Key Information Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n

The real danger of Brexit<\/em>http:\/\/www.economist.com\/news\/leaders\/21693584-leaving-eu-would-hurt-britainand-would-also-deal-terrible-blow-west-real-danger<\/a><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.carbonbrief.org\/eu-referendum-opinion-tracker-energy-and-climate-change<\/a><\/p>\n

The Climate Change Act 2008<\/em>http:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2008\/27\/contents<\/a><\/p>\n

Oral Statement by Amber Rudd, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on ending subsidies for onshore wind, <\/em>22 June 2015https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/speeches\/statement-on-ending-subsidies-for-onshore-wind<\/a><\/p>\n

2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland \u2013 Update 2015, <\/em>Scottish Government http:\/\/www.gov.scot\/Resource\/0048\/00485407.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

The Scottish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Target 2013, Scottish Government, 2015<\/em> http:\/\/www.gov.scot\/Resource\/0048\/00487828.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Update on Scotland\u2019s 2020 Renewable Electricity Target, <\/em>Scottish Renewables, November 2015https:\/\/www.scottishrenewables.com\/media\/filer_public\/97\/53\/9753d54b-72ac-4867-a474-347c636b94b0\/sr_briefing_-_update_on_scotlands_2020_renewables_targets.pdf<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Promoting Technological Innovation to Address Climate Change<\/em>, OECD,http:\/\/www.oecd.org\/env\/cc\/49076220.pdf<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Joanna Wright MSc Carbon Management 2015-2016 [Source:\u00a0http:\/\/www.voxeurop.eu\/en\/content\/news-brief\/4931129-brexit-would-put-europe-stake] The front page of The Economist this week (February 27th-March 4th2016) proclaims \u201cBrexit: Bad for Britain, Europe and the West\u201d. Turn tothe Leader on page 9 and it is argued that not … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":114,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[207,206,157,19,47,115,160,170,165,10,1],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/462"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/114"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=462"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/462\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":482,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/462\/revisions\/482"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/global-environment-society-academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}