84: Countdown to the UK General Election - full panel discussion

Recently, we brought you edited highlights from a live panel discussion held in Edinburgh, entitled Countdown to the General Election: Scotland’s next steps to net-zero.

This episode is the panel discussion in full, including 10 minutes of opening remarks from Chris Stark, Chief Executive of the Climate Change Committee, and over an hour of indepth debate featuring, alongside Chris:

• Charles Hendry, President of BIEE and former UK Government Energy Minister (chair)

• Guy Jefferson, COO Scottish Power Energy Networks

• Professor Janette Webb, chair in Sociology of Organisations, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh

• Chris Birt, associate director for Scotland at the Joseph Rowntree foundation

This discussion considers:

• Are the main parties' decarbonisation goals realistic and achievable?

• Can decarbonisation goals be made more compelling to voters who are concerned that they will have a negative impact on costs of energy and energy security; and what steps are needed to achieve this?

• Where do significant policy gaps lie and what are the priorities for action?

• Recommendations for parties’ manifestos to accelerate a just transition to net-zero.

Episode Transcription

[Music flourish]

Matt: Hello and welcome to Local Zero. This is Matt Hannon. Fraser Stewart is with me too. Hello. And just to be clear, this isn't an episode of Local Zero in the usual sense, and it's fair to say it's not. is probably one of the real energy debate enthusiasts episodes.

Fraser: This is one for the anoraks, for the real dedicated listeners out there.

Matt: You'll have heard in a recent episode Fraser and I talking through the edited highlights of a panel discussion at the University of Edinburgh, all about the next general election and what it means for net zero and climate action.

Fraser: And if that's piqued your interest, what we have here is that panel discussion in full.

Fair warning, it is about 90 minutes in total, so it's a long lesson.

Matt: The event was very ably chaired by former UK Government Energy Minister Charles Hendry, and on that panel were Professor Jan Webb, Chair in Sociology of Organisations at the University of Edinburgh. We also heard from Chris Burt, who's a Director at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and also Guy Jefferson, the Chief Operating Officer at Scottish Power Energy Networks.

Fraser: But the first thing we'll hear is about 10 minutes of opening remarks just to set the scene really from the final panelist, the UK Government's Climate Change Committee Chief Exec, Chris Stark. Enjoy.

 Chris Stark: I am now, I think, a veteran of energy and climate politics and the policy debate, and I've only worked in it for 13 years.

I say that because it feels very much like a battle. It's a battle of attrition. You get the odd loss of territory. You get the occasional major breakthrough. But, uh, we are now in a period when, uh, the forces are consolidating and, uh, looking at this metaphorical map to plan the next assault. And, uh, we must not take the war analogy too far.

Of course, it's not the, not the time for that, uh, at all. But I'll only make this point that it's a strange type of war that is. Uh, because the opposing force here is, is of course the climate itself, and um, we're not going to beat that. Uh, we're just not going to beat the climate. Physics in the end is, it always wins and it always trumps politics.

So, uh, tonight, I, I, I do think we should try and get into politics actually, Charles, and I think we should try and talk about the countdown to the next UK general election and the state of play on net zero. And let me start by just getting down to brass tacks on this issue of net zero itself. Net zero is, uh, not a political concept.

It's a concept with a very solid scientific basis. And, uh, we should remember that, I think. We will keep warming the planet until we reach net zero globally, for CO2 at least. And that is very simply the point when we stop adding CO2 concentrations to our atmosphere. And, uh, to continue that battle analogy for a little while, we are losing that particular battle at the moment.

Um, this year emissions are higher than the last, and we see, of course, with every passing year, the impact that that is now having on our climate. Uh, and that growing accumulation of carbon dioxide is not a surprise to us. Um, uh, this will be, I say with some confidence, the warmest year on record, even though we're not at the end of it yet.

Uh, we've just seen, uh, Storm Babbitt, uh, deposit prodigious volumes of rain on Brechin. Uh, just the last few days. This summer, at least we were spared the extreme temperatures that we got last year in this country. But anyone who went on holiday got a taste of it this year. Um, wildfires ravaged Canada this year.

Uh, and you could go on with all these impacts. This is at 1. 2 degrees centigrade of warming. And of course, this is only really the beginning of the change that we're going to see. And the crucial point for me when it comes to politics, the real meaning of politics, people, people are noticing now, I think, that that change is upon us.

We are now at a level of CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere that we as a species have not known before. Um, well over 400 parts per million, but the Earth has seen it all before. So the last time we were at these kind of levels was probably two or three million years ago. Back then, the seas might have been 20 meters higher than they are today.

Uh, possibly even more than that. So just ponder on that kind of impact and ponder on what we are doing at the moment with our climate. So something must be done, uh, regardless of your views on green wokery or the efficacy of heat pumps and wind farms and all the rest of it. We're going to have to tackle this one way or another.

And that is the first context that I mentioned that matters for the forthcoming election. And it will matter for all the ones that follow it as well. Um, and for those who say, as is, you know, very fashionable these days, that the UK is only 1 percent of global emissions, uh, China's a quarter, why bother?

Let me say three things to you. First, China's going to surprise you. They are certainly opening new coal at the moment, and that must be called out, but they are also installing clean technologies at a genuinely prodigious rate. It's astounding the level at which they are rolling that out right now. Uh, the tipping point is not that far away for China to start sliding back down the emissions curve.

Uh, every solar panel they deploy destroys a little bit more of the economics of coal. They are way ahead on electrified transport. And, of course, they've got the world's production line for all those clean technologies. My second point on China and on the 1 percent point, we may be 1 percent now, but that, of course, was not always the case.

We have achieved a genuinely enviable cut in emissions in this country, in the UK, and we've established the blueprint for how to do that, certainly with the power sector. And countless other countries are now following that blueprint. And it's a little odd, frankly, to want to step off that right now and to see it slow.

And my third point on this 1 percent point, which does come up a lot. We may only be 1 percent of global emissions, but this is the kicker, about a third of the countries in the world are around 1 percent of emissions or they are under, and unless that third also gets to zero, then we don't do anything for climate change.

So this is not some sort of unilateral problem that we're dealing with here. We all have to deal with it and therefore we all have to tackle it in similar ways and in similar pace. Thanks. So what we do in the UK really does matter. I mean that. And sadly, what we have done recently, I fear, has undermined the global leadership that we've had in the UK on climate change quite significantly.

And I will talk about that more in a minute. But back to this challenge that we're here to talk about tonight of net zero here in Scotland and across the UK. My, um, summary of the political context that we have at the moment is, um, that we have probably seen the sort of sugar rush. Uh, period for net zero come and go now that sort of real drive for corporates and countries to sign up to net zero pledges.

We've seen that, um, uh, and it's been really tremendous to be part of that period, but we're now in what you might call the sort of buyer's regret phase, I think, and, um, I think that's inevitable. Uh, I, to some extent, I actually think it's desirable. Uh, we've got to get to, you know, reality and real steps on, on how we deliver net zero and the path to it.

But of course, this is the point when you really need political leadership. So that's the point, really, for this next election. We need a government that is willing to put its shoulder to the wheel on decarbonisation. It, of course, needs to do so while acknowledging the real costs and the real practical barriers to be overcome in all of that.

But that is political leadership, and that's what must come. And that is what we didn't get from the Prime Minister a few weeks back. So there is a very different version of Rishi Sunak's speech that he gave in Down the Street on net zero. that would make those very same points, I think, but also embrace the enthusiasm that we need for that transition to happen, because it's frankly, it's worth it.

It's worth it for the country. You will like it when you get there. That would have been a speech, I think, that would have carried a lot more of us along with him on some of the tougher points about the need to be pragmatic in the near term. We did not get that speech. Um, and let me now turn to what he said in, in more, in more specifics.

Um, we in my institution, uh, try and act as, as Charles says, as the independent, uh, body that looks at these things. We did that with his speech, we looked at the content of that, we tried to run the numbers on that. Um, and we also wrapped into that analysis some of the other things that have happened over the summer.

And some surprising results from that, perhaps, when we wrapped together his speech with the wider developments that we saw over the summer, notably including a failed offshore wind auction But also some really positive stuff. We've got a major new package of support for green steel production in Wales at Port Talbot.

We've got a new mandate on auto manufacturers to produce more electric vehicles that's now being implemented. When you wrap that all together with what the Prime Minister had in his speech, it's basically a score draw. So, you know, the impact that comes out of all that in terms of future emissions trajectory is that there's not much change at all.

He relaxed the consumer signal on EVs, so he moved that date from 2030 to 2035. He removed, I think more importantly, the obligation that he was planning to implement on landlords outside of Scotland, of course, to make their rental properties more energy efficient for their tenants. And he shifted a bit of some of the phase out dates for fossil fuel, for fossil fuel boilers.

But the net effect of all that is effectively no change from where we were when we made our last assessment in June. Um, and that's to say basically we're still off track, uh, pretty substantially. So no worse than before is probably the best thing I can put around that. But here, let me make a distinction between policy and politics.

I think that is very important in policy terms. The prime minister hasn't changed much, but in politics terms, he's changed everything. And, uh, he characterized net zero effectively as a sort of threat to households. Threat to household budgets is a cost to be managed. Something that people, you know, require protection from.

And that, for me, is going to narrow the politics. I mean, I think that is a mischaracterization of where we are on this, on the economics of it. Certainly, that narrowing of politics is important because that will affect all the political parties. Labour, SNP, the Tories of course, even the Lib Dems and the Greens are going to have to think twice about offering that kind of full throttle support that we might need for, for policies for net zero.

And we do need a lot of policy to hit net zero and path to net zero. And that, for me, is my greatest regret, really, in the Prime Minister's speech, is that he's now made it more difficult for those policies to come through. And maybe I'll make an additional point, is that I fear that we are again, in a sense, leading the world on this.

So that is the world leadership, indeed, we are showing that again, that, you know, this time in a much more destructive way on the climate issues. There is a global audience that listened very attentively to what the Prime Minister said in Dining Street. I can tell you that today I spoke to, uh, we have a cousin organization in Canada.

I spoke to the chief executive of that organization today. They are making an announcement today that's similarly about softening the targets and mentioned UK is doing that. So you're seeing that sort of leadership playing out in the wrong way, of course. So that is, to put it mildly, a matter of some regrets.

I think that's what I would probably call it. Um, so I think this is an election that is much more of a climate election than the last one, even though the last one was described in those terms, um, because it is really a test of the strength of the political commitment to delivering these legal targets and the scientific imperative that we have around this.

I don't really know how that's going to go, and I'm happy I'm not in the political prediction game at all. But one thing I do know is that we can't waste any time on this. So here in Scotland, across the UK, net zero is actually a red herring. It's the near term targets that matter and the path that we need to get on.

And those 2030 goals are looming large. So, you know, I gave evidence to Hollywood yesterday, and I said something I've said many times before. It's taken Scotland 30 years to have its emissions. It's going to have to have them again in the remainder of this decade if we're going to hit that 2030 target.

Um, we've also looked at the recent rate of progress at UK level. There are similarly, not quite as ambitious targets, but big targets there too. If you strip out the power sector, because we have been making progress in the power sector. If you look at all the other sectors where the challenge now lies, In decarbonizing, the rate of decarbonization is about 1% per year in recent years, and that needs to quadruple before 2030 every year.

If we're to hit the 2030 goal that we submitted, uh, in Glasgow at COP 26 to the UN process. I do not think that, ladies and gentlemen tonight, that we have a climate policy program that has quadrupling effect in the uk. Um, it will not surprise you. I do not think that Scotland has a plan to have emissions in the next seven years either.

So that is the reality. And although the Prime Minister assured the country we're gonna hit our 2030 pledge, I don't really know how we're gonna do it. Um, and let me just briefly try and answer that question. What would we need to do to hit that 2030 pledge? The happy news is we think it's still in scope for the UK at least.

So reducing emissions by 68 percent was what we said we wanted to do at COP26 by 2030. We would basically need some very big steps to make that happen now, but they are possible. First, we'd need existing plans to be delivered. Now we can debate whether there are other ways to do that, but you need that.

So the existing plan that we have from this government has got to be delivered at UK level, of course. Um, it means much, much faster steps and much more ambition in most sectors, obviously. And third, the thing that we don't talk about enough, we also need contingency in there if it doesn't work. So if there is under delivery on the government's program that has been known before in government policies, then we'll need things that can come in when things don't work as planned.

What that means is more ambition to electrify transport and more quickly on that. It means more ambition to electrify industry. It means faster progress to decarbonize buildings across the UK. It means faster action on changing how we use land, lowering emissions from farming on that land. It means holding and reserve these measures to curb demand for the high carbon stuff.

Uh, that governments are never keen to do. No meat taxes, the Prime Minister has promised, you will note. Uh, no one asked for those meat taxes, but he has promised not to implement them all the same. Um, so that's where we are, if you want to hit the 2030 pledge. Um, the next government is the one that's going to face the real test on this.

So, whether they are willing to turn the dials up to 11, Uh, in the next parliament is the key test, really. Most interesting of the manifesto pledges, I think, therefore, when you look across them, is what Labour is planning to do. We haven't seen so much from the other parties yet, but they are planning to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

That's their key pledge, um, for the whole of the UK. And again, I think that is in scope. You might be surprised to hear me say that. It's in scope if we focus on the right stuff, which is not actually about building new wind farms. It's about decarbonising, uh, gas in the power system, which could be done quickly.

That needs though more than just that plan in place. You've got to think about how you bring hydrogen to those places. You've got to think about carbon capture. You've got to think of those key industrial sites where all that's happening. Again, it's all doable, but it's a Herculean effort to do that in six years.

So beyond Labour's pledge, we don't know what other parties are planning. I'm pretty fascinated to see what comes. You're probably picking up. I'm also quite worried about what might come. So let me end on a more positive note, if I can. which is to go back to the global story. So we have called 28 coming up in Dubai on just over a month's time.

The curtain raiser for that was this week. Actually, the International Energy Agency do their World Energy Outlook. They published that this week, and the big news is that things are really motoring now on the energy transition. We would like to see it happen faster, of course, but things are now happening.

So the IEA now say under current policies, and that's the key thing. They are expecting a plateau in global fossil fuel use, uh, that we will have peak CO2 emissions maybe as early as this year, um, remarkable, um, and the peak oil, gas and coal demand well before 2030, all of them, uh, actually more like 2025.

That is really positive. You know, that's due to much greater energy efficiency in the energy system, of course, but it's also now due to the energy transition taking hold. Because of these fundamentally appealing economics of these cheap renewables based systems that we're seeing, coupled with the big shift in transport that's coming to, we are now seeing deployment of these key technologies at a mega scale, especially in places like China, but right across the world.

And that is, I think, the real backdrop to this election. If you care, you don't care about climate change, you still need to talk about that. The thing that's going on here is much more than just a climate issue now. Uh, we are essentially in a very divided world. Admittedly, we are seeing these modern systems of energy production and use now offering more than just climate benefits.

They're offering security. They're offering greater prosperity to those countries of the world that choose to develop them as well as these climate benefits. And I think that is what matters. Ultimately, this redraw trade flows. It's going to change geopolitics. It's going to benefit energy consumers. the key materials for those transition for that transition in things like electric vehicles and batteries are now more valuable than fossil fuels themselves.

So that's, you know, the next part of this story, protectionism, of course, and defending those supply chains is going to be a big feature in it. But that's got to be something that UK has got something to say about, I think, and that's much more than just net zero. And again, I think it would be a grave error for the UK now to step off this ambitious plan that it's had for some time and go slow in this transition.

Because it's the economies that decarbonise fastest that will benefit first from this transition. Matt and I were talking before just about one aspect of that, the EV transition. The production lines for EVs will be built in the next five years. If you're not one of the places that has those production lines, you will not have jobs in the automotive sector.

So it is about moving quickly on some aspects of it at least. The U. S. gets that, the EU gets that, China certainly spotted all of this a long time ago, but so too, I think, have the Gulf States. This is going to be an interesting call because they're going to confront some of these issues. The issues of what the future looks like after we reach that peak will be front and center in Dubai.

And I think that takes me to the very final point. I promised Charles I would talk about the just transition. And I don't personally like that term very much. It's quite laden with fear. You know, connotations and values, but that is really what we'll be talking about in Dubai. I think if it goes as planned, that just transition for those petro states, but every other part of the world as well.

And I think that bit of it is the bit of the just transition that we're going to have to talk about more. And certainly we should be protecting people from the costs of net zero if they can't afford it. I think that was Downing Street. But the other side of it is the more interesting one for me, which is about how we cultivate the conditions for sustainable employment and every meaning of that word, how we capture what we can of these new value chains here in the UK.

And the UK and Scotland is very well placed still to do that, just about. So it's this coming Parliament where we're going to discover whether we're really serious about all this and whether we'll do that kind of walk the talk thing. And then. I'll just say finally, these are very, very interesting moments to be having this discussion.

And I'm, I'm as much a spectator on it as I suspect everyone else is, uh, on it. But I really hope we come out the, the right, the right place at the end of this, Charles. So

Charles: Chris, thank you very much indeed. And you may be a spectator, but one with a very powerful voice. And I think that also shows the, what I was saying earlier about the importance of having the independent analysis, which you bring of being able to speak truth to power. And not being required to tell your message according to what, what government may or may not want to hear.

I just want to pick up on one point of that, that, uh, 12 months to an election. To what extent can we have a rational debate about this as we start to get more and more frenetically into a sort of pre election campaign period?

 Chris Stark: Um, I mean, I, I, I don't know is the short answer to that. I mean, there is happily today we've seen some quite important legislation turn into law with the energy bill, um, uh, receiving royal assent.

So there is still rational, sensible policymaking happening and will be and continue to happen into the next year. But this is a kind of interesting moment. I mean, I, I, this isn't me predicting the end of this particular government, but as you get to the tail end of every parliament, you, you, the, the kind of.

Momentum built up over the prior years kind of kicks in and the civil service now delivers a lot of things that just need to be done and I think that's probably what we'll be in. The debate about it that happens in political circles, I don't really know how that goes. The Prime Minister clearly made a conscious attempt to reframe the net zero story.

Uh, I'll leave it to you to decide whether that was successful electorally or not for him. But, um, uh, my, my feeling is that we'll probably move on to something else next now. And it may be, may be, that it's, it is not such a big electoral issue as perhaps some of the commentators thought it would be a few weeks ago.

Um, we shall see. Okay.

Charles: And strong evidence, I think, from Australia, maybe even Poland, of people who are not prepared to elect for people who they don't see on the right side of this debate. I think many of these policies end up, and the polling shows, are rather more popular than the politicians might sometimes think.

 Chris Stark: Well, yeah, and I think most straightforwardly, people are just worried about climate change. So it's a slightly odd moment to tell, try and tell a different story about it. Again, I think if there had been a slightly more optimistic version of that speech, then we would be having a different discussion now, wouldn't we?

Okay.

Charles: Okay, let's broaden it out. And I'm going to bring in now Guy Jefferson. Guy is the COO for Scottish Power Energy Networks. He's been with the Scottish Power Group for the past decade. 30 years. So he knows this sector inside out and on the board of the Prince's Trust in Scotland and Sustainable Glasgow.

Um, Guy, let's in terms of where Spend is in this debate that Scotland has phenomenal ambitions for offshore wind, a huge growth of renewable power, the one of the barriers we constantly hear about is a grid connectivity, the time it takes to connect that we're hearing of people who are having their grid connections pushed back by 23 years in different parts of the United Kingdom, we can't deliver that low carbon ambition without the connectivity.

So how do you see this debate and in order for the ambitions to be met, what needs to happen to enable you to get out there and build them?

Guy: Thanks Charles and good evening everyone. Um, so I'll talk about SPEN itself but also perhaps the UK picture as well where I think it's appropriate because it's, it's useful to scale it.

I think the bottom line is that in my view nothing happens without infrastructure. And we've been lobbying for many, many years to get investment ahead of need so we can be better prepared for where we find ourselves now. To offer a chink of light, I think things are moving in the right direction as far as we're concerned with government and the regulatory environment is definitely recognizing the need for acceleration in transmission investment.

But we have a huge challenge ahead of us, not only in my business, but from a UK perspective. I think I would, I would break it down into kind of three areas where we have challenges from a network perspective. We have technical challenges. We've talked about the fact we've got lots of new technologies coming on our network.

Um, that's a big change from what the network was designed for many years ago. So we have offshore wind, we have onshore wind, we have solar panels, we have batteries. Uh, and the dispatch of those are in a lot smaller quantities than the old power stations where you used to be able to dispatch, uh, large amounts of power from, from one place.

So that technical challenge, while we go through this and we connect more and more of those technologies, we need to keep our network stable. Uh, because we need, obviously, to have the capability to move the power around that's coming onto our network. So there are many challenges in that area, which I won't go into.

I don't know if there's many engineers in the house today. We could maybe debate afterwards over a cup of tea some of those technical challenges, but that is a significant, uh, challenge for us, but we're up for it and we believe we can, we can meet that challenge. The second one I would say is resource challenges and by resources probably cut that into two.

There's a skills challenge which we suffer not only in our business but across the piece in terms of the amount of different skills and resources that we need over the coming years to deliver against the plans that we have. Um, in, in SP Energy Networks, for example, we have, uh, we brought in about 800 new people over the course of this year across the Scottish Power Group, which is fantastic.

Um, and, but we need to do that again next year in order to meet the challenge that we've got. And those, those skills are not only engineering skills, they're digital skills, they're, uh, planning skills or project management skills right across the, the, uh, the, the range, if you like. Um, but again, a chink of light we are managing to do that.

We're bringing people in from across the UK and the world, but also we're bringing young people in locally to cover the just transition point. Lots of apprentices, graduates, new people coming into the organization locally to deliver against the plans that we have, which is fantastic. And it's, it's been really positive over the last 12 months in particular.

The other resource is obviously our supply chain. Uh, as Chris has outlined, we're in a, a, a global fight for, for, uh, plant transformer, switchgear, uh, HVDC, all these technologies that all the other countries are wanting to install at the same time. So we need to make sure that we have access to that. And again, it's a call for, for, from a governmental per perspective to perhaps have a UK order book and underwrite some of that to some of those, uh, supply chains that we need to bring in, in order to deliver against the, the challenge that we have.

And the third thing, I guess, is a, is what I would call a process or a procedural challenge. Now, we have a, we have a plan to 2030. We understand what we need to do. We're moving in SP Energy networks from spending somewhere around 200 million over the course of the last 12 months on our infrastructure to, to a billion in four years time.

So it's a huge increase, um, but we won't be able to deliver that unless there's some key things. That the government work hard on, and while it was very disappointing, the tone of the government's presentation with regard to heat pumps and EVs in particular, behind that, perhaps in the margin and maybe not heard about so much, there was still a commitment to a spatial plan, a commitment to the infrastructure that's needed to deliver all of this, which was positive, but we need more emphasis on the planning issues that we've got.

At the moment, for a large transmission project, it's not very popular to have pylons across the countryside and in the backyards of our communities. But we need to work through the process for delivering that a lot more efficiently than we do at the moment. We have a project, for example, in Dumfries and Galloway, which is net zero in a way.

We're taking away as many pylons as we're putting up in order to facilitate more power onto the network. But that has taken up to now eight years to gain planning permission, and we're not there yet. We're hopefully getting it in spring, but we can't have that type of timescale in the future, given everything we've got to deliver.

So we've got to try and reduce that eight years down, preferably to 12 months. And That is going to be a huge challenge. It's something we've tried to face before and not been successful. And it's a massive challenge that we need to overcome and we need to see a policy change in order to deliver that.

The other thing that Charles mentioned is the connections queue. So there are, there are more than enough projects out there to deliver net zero from a, from a renewables perspective. But at the moment, the. The kind of, the peak demand, if you like, of the UK at any one time in winter is about 60 gigawatts.

That's how much is needed at the moment to provide what the country needs. In the connections queue, the queue to connect to the network, there is over 376 gigawatts of projects sitting in that queue at the moment. Now that's, that's a good thing, but unfortunately within that queue there's a lot of dead wood.

There's a lot of projects that are not going to happen. And they're stopping other projects from coming forward and connecting in, uh, in a reasonable timescale. And we need action on that in order to clean out that queue and get the shovel ready projects. to the front of the queue and get them connected where we have capacity.

We still have capacity, we need to build more, as we've said, but that's, that is a significant challenge which again government can, can help us with. So that's kind of the three challenges that we have from a, from a networks perspective.

Charles: So, Guy, you're probably not going to get all of those three resolved by, uh, in the next 12 months.

So if you're talking to government, which one of those do you say is the most important? Uh, which do, is it government strategic purchasing as the German government is doing some of the, uh, transmission equipment, uh, or is it sorting out the planning, consenting and speeding up that process? Uh, where, where, where would your priority be for focus?

Guy: I would, I would say the thing that needs to be focused on right now is the planning. Okay. Because we know that's going to take time and we need to make a start to that. We need to be ambitious. We need to get more detail of the government's intentions. We've talked about a spatial plan and we need to see that coming forward in a bit more detail.

And then we need to communicate with our communities so they understand what that actually means for them and try to get them on board with what that will mean in their backyard, if you like, and what we need from them in terms of moving things forward. And there are ways and means of doing that. I think we've talked about community schemes, perhaps, to invest in local communities so that they see the direct benefits of having that infrastructure local to them.

And it's those sort of things we need to firm up on. It's all very high level at the moment, and there's a lot of good intentions and a lot of good words, but some of the detail of that we need to get onto now because we know that's going to take time to work through. The others are a big challenge for us, but I can see You know, light at the end of the tunnel and some of those and we are starting to move those forward.

Charles: Okay, I'm sure we'll come back onto that. Let me now bring in Professor Jan Webb. So, Jan is a professor of sociology of organisations here at the University of Edinburgh, particular focus on energy, climate and society, and particularly within that the role of local authorities. Um, and an expert advisor to the Scottish Government on fuel poverty.

Jan, as you look at the local authorities, some are moving. ahead of government. Some are behind government. They're all moving at their own different speeds because they've got different pressures affecting them. What do you think councils should be doing to show sort of local leadership and help to accelerate the programming of change?

Janette: Well, we know that, thank you Charles, and thank you Guy, and thank you Chris, particularly for such a clear, um, demonstration of the current position. But on local government, yes, I I would start by saying that there is something, uh, and this is probably somewhat provocative, um, a democratic deficit in the way that we govern the UK, and I think that's part of the difficulties that our local governments are in.

If you look at our European neighbours, by and large, there is more, um, shall we say Devolved powers, particularly down to local and regional government scale. And so those local governments can, in, in the Netherlands, in Germany, uh, in the Scandinavian countries, they can, by and large, have a significant part in setting their own agenda.

And that enables them to be able to take on energy initiatives to work constructively and collaboratively across sectors. But in Britain, our local authorities by and large are constrained by the framework of statutory duties and responsibilities that they face. We've also had You know, a considerable period now where their resources, such as they were back when, have been eroded away to the point where the scope for discretion in activities is extremely limited.

And, and yet, the ambition of I would say is enormous and impressive. The ambition to be part of a UK transition to net zero to some extent, regardless of the political composition of that local or regional government is it's, it's highly enterprising, highly ambitious, but without any real to act. No direct mandates over energy, no direct mandate over the local authority contribution to net zero.

Uh, nevertheless, um, something like, um, I think it's we're up to around 80 percent now of our local authorities have declared climate emergencies. And have produced plans to meet 100 percent of their energy use from renewable sources or clean sources. Some in terms of extremely ambitious timetables, which I think are, um, uh, are set perhaps without really understanding what might be involved there.

They don't have the means, then the resource backing to do that. Nevertheless, we see some very ambitious and very effective, uh, innovations around, typically around some of our combined authorities, but also around cities like Bristol, where there is, you know, a considerable investment in more, uh, localized and tangible, perhaps, energy resources which draw people.

We've got people in locally as well to that debate. Uh, we see, we're in a university, um, jumping away from local authorities, sorry, for one moment, but a city as well, which has plans, considerable plans for, for decarbonising heating in buildings through the development of district heat networks, for instance, a technology we used very little in Britain, and yet, which is always in the, Background is one of the no regrets policy choices for decarbonizing heat in buildings.

And when we ask why can't they all be doing the same? Well, there are differential resources. Uh, and that means that way also tends to mean where you have a finance team that has got the capacity to take climate change and net zero into its capital planning programs that there is more progress. So where there is more kind of, I suppose, work across those typical silos of local governments, there is often more progress, but it is very uneven.

And there is also, I think, a problem of trust. Understandably, given the history of relationships between our central governments, and I would say plural there, governments, and local governments, and that is not helping us in terms of creating that journey towards net zero across our different scales of government.

Charles: So do you think that sort of lack of localism is part of the reason for the problem which Guy has spoken about, the resistance on planning? changes because that I remember going to Denmark and seeing small towns which had one or two wind wind turbines next to them. Genuinely community owned and the people thought those are our wind turbines.

We relate to them. We see them as part of our sustainable future. Whereas here people often would see the companies would make a lot of profit. The landowner makes a lot of money out of it, but the community doesn't benefit very directly. So do you think sort of more community ownership would help to change the attitudes?

Janette: I would hope so. I wouldn't, I wouldn't like to put my money on it, shall we say, but um, what we've done by and large in Britain so far is develop Let's talk about wind power. Develop wind turbines without necessarily any benefits to the locality. Of course, there are always examples. There are some very good examples of where there are community shares in wind turbines or in solar power.

I'm a member of the Edinburgh Solar Co op, which owns some solar PV on the roofs of public buildings. Um, so, you know, You know, there are examples where you've got that community stake, where there is interest. I know there is also considerable outright opposition, or there has been. Uh, I heard Lord Deben just a couple of weeks ago speak about his own area in the south of England.

Uh, and his sense that the understanding on the ground in different parts of Britain is shifting among the local population such that there is more willingness to engage with planning consents and with an understanding of the need to plan for that kind of infrastructure that Guy has been talking about and then to proceed at pace with it and deeply disappointing if we can't do that and deeply worrying of course.

So yes, we need, but we need constructive, coherent, and, uh, uh, good consensus across the political spectrum to enable that.

Charles: Okay, thank you very much. I'm going to move on now to Chris Birt. Chris is the Associate Director for Scotland for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and in that role he is working with partners in government, in other not for profit groups and elsewhere, uh, to tackle issues of fuel, particularly of poverty and fuel poverty across Scotland.

Uh, he previously worked in government in the, uh, as head of the First Minister's Policy and Delivery Unit, so he's seen it from both inside and out. Um, Chris, there's a huge continuing anxiety about people being able to pay their bills. Clearly, the government stepped in to try and deal with some of the enormous elements of that last year.

But people are still struggling day by day, and as we go into winter, a big issue once again. How do we ensure that people who are, who's, their connectivity to energy is about the fear of the bill coming through? How do we get them to buy in to the need for a transition and to see as this is something which is good for them and something which they should be positive about?

Chris Birt: Um, you did say to steer away from politics, Charles, but I'm going to march right over that.

Charles: Think I didn't want you to feel obliged to be critical, but should you choose to be that's entirely.

Chris Birt: We need fewer statements like the prime minister's a couple of weeks ago, because frankly, for a government to stand on the steps of Downing Street or any steps and to say, Oh, we need to take a step back on our climate ambitions because people are struggling to get by.

Right. We, we published a report earlier this week that showed that four million people in the UK, uh, currently experience destitution. A million of those are children. Now, a decent chunk of those are due to the, the cruelties of the immigration system, which I'll leave for another day. But, a large chunk of that is caused by government policy.

Over the last few years, particularly to to wither away the social security system so that when we have the outrageous spike in energy bills, which we saw over the last couple of years, that is punishing. I mean, fuel poverty stats basically broke over that period because of the outrageous costs which was put onto people.

So I take not with a mountain of salt. Uh, warnings from the present government that, oh, net zero could add to the, the pressures that households are under. They are causing the pressures that households are under. And I think when we talk about, as, as Chris mentioned, we absolutely need to have a conversation about how we fairly distribute the costs.

of, of that transition, but then we need to have a far better debate than we have now. There is no inevitability about how energy costs fall onto households. There is no inevitability about how we design a transport system, which at the minute favours individual use of cars. Over, you know, accessible and affordable public transport.

We, we, we are in a transition phase, which we must have the, the very survival. Every time people like Chris speak about these things, I get a shiver. I've got a five year old at home. I look at the way the world is changing around us. The climate, as Chris says, is coming for us. We have to change. So let's assume that, that change is coming.

That we have to, we have to be positive and hopeful. We can do that in a way which also addresses the structural inequalities which cause those things. Why would people with little at the moment be concerned about a transition to net zero? Because all the transitions we've seen in modern history have tended to be on the backs of the people who have least.

We saw deindustrialization in the UK where there was, we were, these changes were happening within our society. But rather than looking at how you could support communities through that period, we just hit the accelerator and we pay for that today. We have lowering life expectancy within the UK, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, because we have piled transitions in our society on the backs of those with the least.

That is not inevitable. Governments can make different decisions. We can make a decision to lower our emissions and give ourselves a livable planet, and we can make decisions to change the ways in which our economy and our societies operate so that we do not pile the pressure onto families who can least afford it.

Charles: So that if the, one of the ways in which we can help both with bills and with sustainability is by doing more energy efficiency. Looking at it from a particularly Scottish perspective, given the title of our discussion, are we seeing enough progress on energy efficiency in Scotland? What more can be done to accelerate that work, if you think it needs to be accelerated?

Chris Birt: Well, I think there's a variety of ways, and again, these aren't, we shouldn't silo our thinking on these things, so we need more social housing in Scotland. We, we, we are the, the, I think in the foothills of a housing emergency, which, and it starts in this city, we need more affordable social housing. We hear from families all the time who have moved into new energy efficient, warm, cheap housing, which ticks both of those boxes.

But we know we, I think that the Scottish government are a wee bit stuck. On the heat and buildings transition. And I think partly that is because it's big and it's difficult. Partly that's due to restrictions on their budget. And I think this again is where we need to have these grown up discussions about this transition.

We need to prioritize spend. At the minute I think we do too much general support to people. We should be targeting that support at those who need it the most. And frankly, those households who are going to have to bear this cost at some stage, um, they will, they will, they will do it anyway and they can afford it.

And we need to stop creating invented pressures on households who are going to face a bit of a cost and change. But who can afford it?

Charles: The private rented sector is probably some of the worst, isn't it? So, you've seen a lot of investment in the council owned housing stock to try and improve their energy efficiency.

And then the owner occupiers have, you know, Followed suit in some to some extent, but I'd rather the private renter sector, I would've thought remained some of the most challenging.

Chris Birt: Yeah, I'd say so. And the, the private renter sector causes poverty in Scotland. As I say, I I, one of the big solutions to that is to increase the supply of social housing.

I think the, the private rent sector is being asked at the minute to do something that it's not the designed to do. People who are v extremely vulnerable to price rises are in the private rent sector where they, where they shouldn't be. And I, I mean, I. To be honest, I take some. I do take it with a bit of a pinch of salt, but, you know, private landlords who will now face additional costs to bring their their properties up to, um, up to a better energy efficient standard.

The idea that that can be passed on to all tenants in all scenarios is is one that we cannot accept. Very good.

Charles: Okay, so we've had four really challenging and interesting, inspiring opening contributions, and I'm going to open it up to you in the room. We have two roving mics. We've got Alex currently in the back and Rachel here at the front.

Please wait, and I'll Identify people, please wait till the microphone comes to you. We are recording the session at the moment for a podcast called Local Hero. Uh, Local Zero, apologies. Uh, Local Zero make a very good movie as well. Um, and uh, so if you don't want your comments to be recorded, please say so at the start of your question, and then it will be, uh, switched off for that period.

So, can I see some hands, please, for people with some questions. So, let's start. Alex, you're at the back, let's start right at the back there and then we'll take them in two. So, lady at the back there and then two rows in front.

Sarah: Thanks. My name's Sarah. I work for SSEN Transmission, um, the, the co pilot to, to, to Guy's business.

Um, so I want to know what are the policies that you would want to see in manifestos for next year? If I pushed you to pick just one, um, and that you could get cross party support on, what would it be? And, uh, if you were to pick one for individual parties that was, like, really out there and you could push an individual party, what would it be?

Charles: Very good. And then two rows in front.

Camilla: Hi, Camilla Thompson, School of Engineering here at Edinburgh. Um, I'm not actually going to ask a technical question. Um, I hope. It's a little bit more about, um, So I'm really interested in. The idea that I understand, um, from speaking to my colleagues that, um, there are people who particularly in Scotland who live in fuel poverty whilst also living adjacent to a considerable renewable resource, um, and potentially suffering some of the, um, downsides of having lots of that construction happening locally and, and transmission, um, Yet they still can't really afford the energy.

So, um, one, I mean, I'll throw the words out there, but I know it's quite contentious. Locational marginal pricing. Um, there is a, uh, Um, there is a certain, uh, so far at the moment within the system, there is a locational aspect from what I understand to some of the charging. There is also, um, to some extent, some sort of evenness across the country.

So if you live in an area with good renewable resource, you don't particularly get any kind of a financial benefit. Um, what opportunities do you see for how, um, that could potentially change, but particularly with regards to, um, sort of balancing out the problem for people in field poverty?

 Chris Stark: Um, Sarah, your question about what policies you want, you'll find that in a very long report that I've just published, but, um, uh, let me say that the, the, the, the one I'd like to see there on the top one is just a restatement of the commitment from all parties to doing something about this, which, uh, I confess I'm worried about at the moment, actually.

I think that's the first time in 15 years I've, I've thought that. Um, but the big one is I'm going to, I'm going to come in behind you here. I think if we get some consensus about the need to actually do some of these very difficult decisions and put in place the kind of steps that I think both main parties at UK level would like to see happen to, you know, streamline the planning process and the, and the grids queue.

Now we have a different planning regime in Scotland, so they'll need to be on board too. That is really bloody important because, um, it's what enables the rest of it to happen. It doesn't answer very many of the questions about how you decarbonize, but it sets us up to have an energy system that can be quickly decarbonized.

And let me just go a little bit further into that, and this is not really about the Labour Party at all, but I said something earlier about their 2030 pledge. That 2030 pledge is really hard, really, really hard. I mean, I think if you throw everything at it, you can do anything if you throw everything at it.

And labor say that's what indeed what they want to do was interesting to me is that, um, if you wanted to deliver the power target early, the current target is one that we recommended to decarbonize the power system by 2035. The answer to doing that is actually to focus on where we use fossil fuels in the power system right now.

And actually, that, for me, is quite interesting because it tackles one of the other issues that we've talked about a bit already on the panel, which is being specific about what locations have certain things within them. And again, you could go fast on the power target and the power decarbonization target if you looked at where we generate electricity with gas at the moment.

And rule of thumb, 30 places in the UK is where that happens. Ten of those places need to be closed down, probably because the, the plant is old. Ten of them we would keep, uh, as reserved capacity, but that means that's ten places that need to be decarbonized. Now that is an interesting infrastructure question.

So you would need to bring those ten places, uh, something that allows power to be generated without burning fossil fuels directly. So that is either carbon capture or it's hydrogen. Um, and yes, you need batteries, you need all that good stuff with it. But that is, and that's not the way we typically talk about that target.

That is, and to me, that's quite an interesting way into the broader question of what you might do with, for example, decarbonizing industry in those locations. You can then talk about the heat transition on top of that too. So I don't think we're done with the story on the power system. So I'll link that to my earlier point.

That, if we could get some consensus about that bit of it and how we could go quickly on that, However, through whatever means, I'm sure the Labour Party approach would be different to the Tories approach. And indeed the SNP approach to that would be different again. That is, that's how you get stuff done quickly.

I think this, this transition in energy would happen much more quickly if we could be clearer on where these things happen, which kind of speaks to a wider point during, in Camilla's point about LNP and locational marginal pricing. Um, I'm not against locational marginal pricing. In fact, my job is to remain firmly on the fence on these sorts of issues.

But, um, I am against delay. And I can say that corporately. And, uh, you've got these sort of two competing ideologies effectively happening at the moment in, in design of energy systems generally, which is one where you've got an extreme version of, I suppose, the kind of economist, purist approach, which is to put the right price on things and the investment happens in the right places.

And then over here, a more pragmatic approach, which is basically build a spatial plan and, and just, you know, let's see where people live and where energy needs to be generated, and where things like hydrogen storage are and, Carbon capture, and let's just draw some lines in a map. I am instinctively drawn to that, because it gets stuff done quick.

So, I think, you know, if you can, if you can lay out where some of this stuff is, if, if, I mean, I may be wrong on these ten places, but if it's only ten places, then we should know where they are, and we should be focused on getting that done nice and quick. And I think, you know, that, that mixture of, Pragmatism, to use the Prime Minister's word, plus some element of locational pricing, of course we should have that, is probably the right mix to get stuff done more quickly, and it's pace that bothers me, actually, more than anything else.

Thank you.

Guy: Guy. So, rather than repeat the most important one, which is planning, which I've already said, maybe I could move to something else, um, So, uh, Resources is very important. We've, we've suggested to government that, uh, the need to create, um, some sort of, uh, investment pot or fund that allows the companies to tap into and accelerate the development of resources locally in the UK.

We are finding ourselves more and more having to go outside the UK to get the people that we need. Which we don't want to do because it's, you know, it's expensive and those people are not what I would call sticky. They'll come, they'll help us deliver in the short term, but they won't be here for the longer term.

And this is a long term issue. This is not going to be solved in a couple of years. It gives us a good start, it gets us moving, but we need to develop our own people. So some sort of underwriting of some sort of skills manifesto to deliver this, I think would be good from a, from my perspective. Um, Again, back to one of my other points, this UK order book is good for a number of reasons and it's back to this community wealth building, as I like to call Just Transition, to use a better term.

If we can get that and we can get that underwritten, then there's a better opportunity to build manufacturing capability here in the UK. There are companies out there who've come to see us and are really interested. But they want long term investment plans, they want long term commitments, and they will build factories.

There have been one or two already announced. There's not a spade in the ground for those yet because they're waiting for government to give them a better commitment. And that doesn't mean, you know, giving a large, um, kind of grant from government to get that moving. That just means a long term commitment to the kind of equipment we're going to need anyway.

So something in that regime, I think, would be really important for us. In terms of the locational aspect, I think we do have an issue there. Obviously, a lot of the resource that we've got from a wind perspective, and we talk about Scotland in particular, we have a lot of it here, but the load centres are further south in our country.

So there is obviously an issue with regard to the cost of bringing that power down into the load centres in the south. And that is, I don't think that, that's obviously not advantageous for the projects up here. So we need to, we do need to look at that locational pricing aspect. Again, what is, how do we solve that?

Not sure. But we need to keep that debate up and we need to make sure that there is some flexibility and discussion around that to try and solve that problem. I think the projects that are probably best developed and probably most ready to, to go, if you like, in terms of being connected are up, up here in Scotland.

And we have a good. I think, uh, facilitation from Scottish Government to make that happen and all the benefits that can, that can bring, I wouldn't like to see Scotland disadvantaged in that respect. So, yeah, I guess that would be the answer to the, the two questions, Charles.

Charles: Jen?

Janette: Yeah, thank you. Um, yeah, I, again, I think I'll just be provocative and say, um, you know, my wish list for the policies in the manifestos is going to be that, That all parties will agree to have a constructive discussion about the future of tax in the UK and that they will change the basis of taxation away from taxing income, including the redistribution of benefits towards the lower income households in that sense, and shift the tax burden far more to land and assets.

And. Unearned, if you like, income as opposed to wages and salaries. So, that would be, I would argue, a critical means of releasing a lot of the resources that, you know, we argue about all the time. How are we going to fund this? Where is this going to come from? If we took seriously the taxation of carbon, of emissions, of making polluters pay, and, of course, Uh, controversially, the highest emitters are the top 10 percent of wealthiest persons.

Now, that would be really politically popular, wouldn't it? Uh, let's think about how we actually redistribute those carbon taxes and then direct those to the net zero targets that we have. Uh, and, uh, on, alongside that, I would probably have a, A clear net zero mandate for local authorities, so that it solves some of those local resource questions, bringing in local knowledge and commitment and local skills.

Um, and, you know, there's scope for serious heat in buildings action, again, across party lines. One would hope there is no dispute there about the need to get back into accelerating on heat planning and implementation.

Yeah.

LMP, I'm, I agree with what you said, I think there's all sorts of people, so.

Chris Birt: I was going to be cheeky and dodge your question and say, this is far too complicated for one thing.

Um, but I mean, ultimately, I think some of the stuff which comes back to the slightly dangerous political rhetoric around, um, the impact of, on low income people of, of net zero is because people at the moment. are trying to get by on incredibly low incomes. So what, uh, bad actors can do is prey on those fears.

And that's that, that we see that across politics, whether it's immigration or, or, or poverty. And I do think there is something fundamental in the UK that we have such a weak social security system that if anybody trips over, you know, people, people separate from their partners, get ill. etcetera. Um, you just get chucked down a hole.

And so then the idea of Oh, we need you to contribute to this massive global problem. That's an existential threat. It's quite a difficult conversation to have with people. So giving people a bit of security would would be really important. And then the next sort of one A, B, C, D, E. So it comes back to the second question of We need to slightly get ourselves out of the constraints of the world as we see it just now.

You know, if with the resources that we have in Scotland, that we have such a high concentration of rural fuel poverty, just how can that be acceptable? I don't get it. We have the technology, we have the ability to You know, we used to just have. I mean, I'm going to talk about energy here in a room full of people who know a million things more than me.

So please don't throw anything. But, you know, we used to have big power stations and we'd have to get that energy elsewhere. Big power stations that were often also built beside low income communities, I should say. Um, surely we have the brains between us. to, to manage that cost more effectively. Then I think it comes back to what Charles was saying about how can communities be more involved?

How can we redistribute them? I mean, Scotland's concentration of land is sickening. These are things we can and should change. And I think starting it, don't get me wrong, that feels a long way from the political debate we're having just now. I appreciate it. But we need to get on that train.

Charles: Very good.

Okay, let's see some more questions, please. We've got 15 minutes left, so if we can keep the questions brief, and we can keep the answers brief as well, then we can get through as many people as possible. So let's start here, down at the front. So, Matt and Ian.

Matt: Thank you, Charles. Matt Hannan, Strathclyde Business School. Uh, panel, fantastic, uh, discussion there. I wanted to pick up on the point, I think, Guy raised, about consent versus speed and pace, which kind of, I guess, pervaded through much of what we heard. How do we settle these two issues? We, to use the old proverb, if you want to go fast, go alone.

If you want to go far, go with others. Um, we need to, we need to have a clear plan on this quite quickly. Thank you. We need to go far in terms of decarbonization, but we need to go quickly. Chris, you made that point very eloquently indeed. So, any ideas from the panel about how we might, uh, uh, square that circle in the next manifesto?

Thank you.

Ian: Great. I'll echo as well. Thank you so much for, um, the great inputs this evening. Um, going on right now, there's the task force that Wendy mentioned I was sitting on, around Green Heat Finance, but there's also the First Minister's Investor Panel and a lot of, I think, focus within Scottish go Scottish government of how.

Do we actually not use any more budget government funding, but actually get private finance and particularly international mobile capital is the term that's being used into finance a lot of this. And I think historically we've seen that they've been very good at financing the old model, which very much based on incumbents and high credit ratings.

And that's the way to access, um, uh, lower cost finance. But I still think there's a big question of how does this, um, And Chris, taking your term, match up with this need for more kind of the fair cost and fair sharing of benefits around the transition. And, you know, that's a really tough question. You guys have the answer here, make the task force job a lot easier.

Um, so a few insights on that would be, would be helpful. Okay,

Charles: Guy, one or both questions.

Guy: So, in terms of pace and consenting, one very simple example. Again, um, don't want to talk politics, but we need to take the politics out of the process. So there are steps in there that we could take out and we've done some good work, I think, with the Energy Consents Unit under the auspices of MPF4 here in Scotland.

I use the example of the previous scheme that I talked about down in Dumfries and Galloway. The planning professionals deemed that that planning consent should go ahead Uh, and it was flipped into the political arena, and the councillors decided they wanted to push it into the, to, to a public inquiry.

Based on, well, not based on what the planning officials had advised them, who are the experts. And that has cost us an extra year, in terms of the, the, the process. And we're going to probably end up with exactly the same scheme as we had before. So there are steps that I think can be taken out quite easily.

And it would shorten the process and you would end up with a good scheme to move forward with. I'm not talking about any of the community consultation. We need to make sure that we're doing that and doing it efficiently. But there are steps you can take out, I think, now. That doesn't need a change in policy necessarily.

We can do it now. But it just needs a bit of bravery from a political point of view. Okay. Jen?

Janette: I can give a simple example, a small example relative to the amount of private capital that we certainly need to bring into the picture. Um, again in relation to, Giving more fiscal levers to local and regional governments, I would suggest, is one way forward with that.

So we, a few years ago now, did a study looking at which were the more successful local authorities in terms of creating momentum around local energy, clean targets, better resourcing locally for that transition. Um, and we found basically that those local authorities in Britain that we were still in the European Union, then those local authorities in Britain who had, uh, awards from the Elena program, the European local energy assistance program and another associated technical assistance program.

We had a combined I've got my notes here, so I'm going to cheat and read them. We had a combined 23 million euros, not a huge amount, from Elena technical assistance grants. But that alone led to something like 859 million euros in investments in local energy systems in Britain. And that is a 1 to 37 investment ratio.

So in the reports and briefings that we've given around that, we've argued that investing in technical assistance to every local authority in Britain would enable a considerable leverage factor. Now, not all of that would be private capital, of course, but it would build the momentum For more private capital to invest and one would hope that that kind of step makes a lot of sense is Very good value for public money

Charles: Chris Birt

Chris Birt: em It's complicated.

I obviously You know, I spend a lot of my time sort of advocating and Campaigning on trying to solve poverty which again is is not necessarily a kind of easy You Silver bullet type, um, issue, but I mean, one of the things around the consent thing is we, I do think, I mean, as Chris has said, like people are getting worried about climate change.

And at the minute we have a lot of the, a lot of the data and insight into individuals is not very democratically held. It's held within the, the organizations and institutions that hold power. And I do think that's part of the way if we can start to, um, get more data on what the public are thinking, what the public are worrying about out into the world, because these are the things that start to impact on decision makers.

And I think like as an organization like JRF, we have broadened our, our strategy to talk about people and planets. Flourishing because I think it's important that we it's not just the organizations within the climate movement, plus large organizations like energy providers and energy networks to be to be having this discussion.

It needs to be broader and to get, I think, to start to once you move into the political sphere to make that a more Sensible discussion that is now because we still see you see decisions all the time. You know, for example, the the council tax freeze that the Scottish government have just announced that's supposed to be helping people were struggling to pay the bills.

It doesn't. It just doesn't. It's nonsense. And I think we again starting to use data and arguments to cut through that. But importantly, too, is and I think this is This is a tension, and we have it within the poverty sphere as well. It is important not to be too fatalistic, because that's natural human reaction.

It is, is to remember the negative. To think all were doomed. Yeah, we are. I mean, you know, Scotland were famous for that. Come on. Um, so I do think having, having that more positive story to talk about. I mean, it starts with having a livable planet, but also the way in which we can change our energy networks, change how we travel, change how we consume things in a, in a positive way.

And I think we can get Getting the balance between rightly having people worried about it, but also seeing a future which is better than the one that we've got just now.

Charles: Chris,

 Chris Stark: I'd be very quick because I know we want to get on the questions, but I'm gonna disagree with you, Guy, if I can. I think we need to get the politics back into it big time.

Like, I think that's the issue. It's that we've slightly lost the enthusiasm to do all this stuff because we're not seeing that enthusiastic leadership from politicians. We've maybe never seen it, actually, if I'm honest. And, um, That, for me, is the key thing. It also answers the question of where the finance will come to, because we know from long history that the key to getting finance into anything is that the investor community sees that there is a certain goal and that they're not going to bugger about with it.

So, you know, that idea of there being a worthwhile thing here is what I think I'm interested in. I'm going to say something you might find surprising. I think that it's okay for that not to just be about net zero. I think that's the other bit of this, that we've been in a slightly weird period where net zero has been the thing.

Um, and, uh, of course, I'm pleased about that, but, um, uh, you know, there's lots of other reasons to do the things that get you to net zero. And in my view, they're probably more motivating to do that. So. I would like to see it return to being an enthusiastic, optimistic discussion. And I know I'm starry eyed about some of this, but that is where a lot of the progress will be made.

And the kind of simple answer to the question, how do you deal with the consent questions? Just get going on it, like do something. Um, I feel we've slightly gummed up ourselves and I'm no doubt part of the problem in the slightly technocratic discussions, but all the many ways in which we are planning to do a thing rather than actually doing it.

And, um, I read something recently because I live in Glasgow. Charles and I were talking about Glasgow earlier and I think a lot about what the Victorians might've done about it. Um, and there's a particular project I like in Glasgow because sometimes we go out and visit Loch Catrin and, uh, Loch Catrin is an amazing sort of mega project that the Victorians just decided to do that takes a dammed up a loch and takes this fresh water.

It drops, I think, I think the figure is half an inch a mile. Uh, through just sheer gravity, it takes the fresh water to Glasgow. That was basically to deal with a cholera problem in Glasgow at the time, because we needed Glasgow to make stuff. And I don't think the Victorians would have blinked at this net zero transition, I think it's, because it's not like it's that difficult, you know, there's, it's just a lot of stuff needs done, and the quicker we get around and do it, the better, and I, maybe I will make one more political point, which is about HS2 and the Prime Minister's decision there.

The oddity there is, I suspect, I don't think real people think about the cost of those projects in the way that the Prime Minister pitched it. Um, and I read something recently, which of the white elephants that we have seen over the last 20, 30 years do we regret now building? Um, you know, the Millennium Dome, I remember, was one of those things and people used to complain about the cost of it.

But it's now quite a well loved building. There's lots of these sort of big projects. So, I tend to think that that's just the way through. You've just got to get it done. Get it done and then sort of enjoy the benefits of it later. And, uh, and that would, you would expect me to say that, wouldn't you? But I suspect that's what would take people along, too.

Charles: It's a peculiarly British issue, isn't it? I mean, the French are much better. All European countries are better at building infrastructure. And they can do it more quickly, they can do it with more public acceptance.

Guy: I thought you were going to use Edinburgh Trams as your example.

 Chris Stark: Yeah, but that's a really good example, that's a very good example of one of those white elephant projects, isn't it?

Now, who would say now that they've known quite lately Edinburgh Trams? That's the point, is the sunk cost of that, no doubt it was too high. And I don't want net zero to be too high, but the point is that we don't regret them once they're built. And, um, there's a lot of that for net zero.

Charles: Okay. Uh, we're not going to get you all in, I'm afraid, but we'll take the front here and then by the aisle a little bit further back.

Susan: Thank you. Um, Susan Murray from the David Hume Institute. So a big plug for our event on Monday in the business school. We've got Professor Jan Bevington who used to be a Scottish government advisor. Um, so I will declare, I used to work for the Sustainable Development Commission and I'm really interested in data and evidence.

And I think Chris, you've been relentless at advocating for this and really worked really good at staying objective. But what do you do when data and evidence don't work? And, um, Chris just was talking about data and evidence, but There's a rising proportion of people that just don't listen, and there's varying estimates of it might have reached 29 percent of people now that are anti everything, from anti COVID vaxxers, to anti LTNs, to anti 5G masks, but there are organized groups bringing those together that are well funded, and could they play a part in the next election, bigger than any of the things we've talked about tonight, and be a threat to the agenda?

Charles: And then with the beard a little bit further back.

No, uh, a bit further.

Nick: Thank you very much. Uh, my name's Nick, uh, Nick Lythe. Uh, speaking as, um, an Edinburgh pensioner, I really want the panel to please tell me who to vote for. Chris Stark has clearly, uh, Nailed his colors to the mast with Get It Done, who sounds like Boris Johnson with a Scottish accent. But, but, who do I vote for?

That's the question. Very good. And then

Charles: let's include the gentleman in the t shirt and a bit further, three, four rows back. A bit further forward, Alex.

Chris A: Chris Allsworth, School of Geosciences. We're talking about meeting the net zero target. I want to maybe is the last question just ask the thing that I find maddening about a lot of this stuff, you know, wind co2 storage, hydrogen storage, we have a significant chunk of Europe's potential for these things.

So actually, beyond just meeting our own targets, it's the economic opportunity of a generation. And my question is, how do we make sure that we really capture that opportunity and the benefits that come from that in maybe the way that the Norwegians have with our oil and gas in the way that I think we have?

not lived to that potential for oil and gas. Um, so maybe a bit beyond net zero to finish. Very good.

Charles: Okay, Jen.

Janette: Who to vote for? Depends what you want, doesn't it? Um, uh, I'd actually, it's very interesting at the moment in terms of the shift in the political parties. I, I prioritise, um, our future livable planet, because I think that puts everything else into perspective.

But I don't have a clue who to vote for to maximize the chances. I sort of think I know who not to vote for, shall we say. Naming no names, of course. Um, and what to do when data and evidence don't work. I mean, please tell me. Uh, I think we have very Powerful social media

forms, shall we say, uh, that are directing and the way that social media works to direct attention down certain channels. Um, it's, what can we do to combat that and to counter it and to engage with it? Uh, other than, And I heard an impressive lecture last week, a Macaulay Institute lecture last week from, um, Johan Rockström, uh, planetary boundaries person, who said, Well, I can't do anything other than trying to speak truth to power, I suppose is what he was saying.

And I feel that very strongly. We all, all of us, need to consider very carefully where is, Where is the evidence here? And what, where does the balance of evidence lie? Massively, I'm afraid, towards the fact that we are facing serious risk to our health. Future planetary life support systems. And do we really want to just pass that down the line and and focus on the next, um, bit of shopping you can get?

I hope not, really. And, uh, what was the other one? Ah, yes, the, um, how to capture the economic opportunity. Well, I would, I would say That we need political leaders there who We'll explain and keep on explaining and stand behind that economic opportunity and make sure That their policy and their political leadership is aligned around that These are such big questions

Charles: Chris Birt

Chris Birt: um, I mean it's interesting the first question the second question are obviously linked Because, I mean, a large part of, of, I think what's happening with, you know, whether you call it conspiracy or whatever, is that people think that politicians are a bit crap.

Janette: So you just think, well, indeed, but I do think it's that as people have been able to get messages, more messages out into the world, then these things can, can take off a bit. I mean, I like, it's a slight tangent, but I mean, the UK is ripe for a democratic reform. The electoral, the first past and post electoral system is bad.

bizarre. And you can see that in America as well. That allows, you know, it's polar a polarization within two main parties. I think it's deeply, deeply unhealthy. Um, but I do think we need to. And you know what? There are green shoots of this in Scotland of communities taking more of a An interest in role and running, owning things, running their land.

I think like these things start from the grassroots and I, you know, frankly, sometimes I do despair a bit at how governments operate at the moment and then I go and spend a bit of time in a local community trying to change things there and think, well, I'm going to put my energy into doing that and hope that that flourishes.

But I do think fundamentally we do need democratic reform in the country.

Charles: Chris,

 Chris Stark: um, Let me deal with a few of these really. I mean, who do you vote for, Nick? Uh, whoever you, whoever you want, but make sure you do vote, uh, because that's the main thing, really. It will send a very important message about some of the things that Jan has talked about, and we don't really get many opportunities to do that directly.

So I read a brilliant piece about And I won't name any names here, just the sheer extent to which the current Westminster bubble is vibes based on. It is basically about vibes, you know, like, you know, this thing here is what everyone thinks. Let's run towards it. And there's so much of that and you would be surprised, Guy will not be, but you'd be surprised how much in energy policies is determined by thoroughly agreeable lunches.

Um, and, uh, the, uh, the only way you get to kind of Stick things back in the ground is with a, you know, a clear clear election result. So we'll see where that goes. Won't we? the opportunities. I'm going to say something again, slightly counter to it. I mean, I accept entirely that Scotland does indeed have Britain has indeed these enormous resources to store carbon.

And indeed it could well be a hub globally for doing that if we can get that stuff right. But actually what I'd quite like is, is, Every single thing I read from government, and I read a lot of stuff from government, I'm happily not in it anymore, so I read it all as a consumer of it. I'm tired of world leading things.

I'd quite like to just get back to basic competence, actually. That would be a more, that would be, that would be where I would focus, and then get on to the world leading stuff after that, because we miss entirely the fact that the rest of the world is already leading on most of the things that we claim to be.

Future leaders on. So, um, we will do this best if we demonstrate how to do this transition well, and that is where the influence comes over places like China and the U. S. So that's that. And then I'm gonna end on the final point. This point about anti data and anti analysis is indeed something that I come up against a lot.

And I, you know, I love a chart. I love it. I'm very, very, you know, enthused by the analysis that we do. One of the most impactful things I've seen in the last, uh, uh, couple of years was a lecture that Brian Eno gave. Brian Eno, you might know as a music producer, but he's a sort of renaissance man. He's done all sorts of things.

The thing that stuck with me was what he said at the start of the lecture, uh, which is that he said to a room full of climate folk, and he's a climate y person himself, and He said, you've all got it wrong. He was in Imperial College with a bunch of engineers and people like me, wonks, basically. He says, we've all, we've collectively all got it wrong.

We think that if we, if only the analysis is done a bit harder, then you'll get, you'll get the movement to change. And he said, the point is that the idea comes first, was what he said, and then people look for the analysis. And we've slightly got that wrong, I think, so we've, we've been working really hard at developing all this evidence of how bad climate change is, and it's all there, and how easily the transition could happen if only these policies were in place.

But we've slightly forgotten to put the idea in about why we want to do this in the first place. What's the exciting thing, the nugget that people are interested in? And then they will seek that data and that analysis, and it will support the things that we need to do. And I'm, I'm all for that, really. I think that is, That is the kind of way to do it.

I'll bring in another artist if I can, Bjork, who's my favorite artist of all. But she says a similar thing, which is imagine a future, now be in it. And that's exactly the same sort of thing. And this isn't some wokey rubbish from someone like me. I think that is the thing, that we have the data to show you what that future looks like, but you've got to want it.

And I think that's the key thing back to the story of politics, that you've got, we need leadership to demonstrate what that might look like so that people have something to strive for.

Charles: Thank you. Guy?

Guy: I won't go near the who to vote for, but I guess the one I would comment on is the economic opportunity, absolutely.

Um, so we're a regulated business, so as part of our commitment in that regulatory licence is that we need to commit to doing local investment and keeping some of that value, if you like, in the country. I would also use the example, and I'm not saying it's perfect, but as part of ScotWind, and the licences that were bought as part of ScotWind, the companies who were successful had to give some commitment to that.

to local investment, investment in this country. That's fine, but we need to make sure we keep working together with the government to make sure that's not at any cost. We've got, they've got to work with us in, in order for us to put in a, as I've said before, a manufacturing capability in this country or in the UK to be done efficiently so ultimately the cost isn't excessive.

But there are ways of doing it, I think, and again, having said take the politics out of one process, I think widely. Widely, we do need to engage, um, the politicians in that sort of activity and that will allow us hopefully to have more of that wealth locally here in the UK.

Charles: Okay. Well, I'm afraid our time is up and I'm sorry to those of you who had your hands up and didn't get your questions, uh, called, uh, the panelists will be around afterwards.

So do come and join them and have a chat with them over a glass of wine. Uh, that I think it's been a really fascinating hour and a half and hugely grateful to the business school for hosting it, the BIE and also to, particularly to our panelists. Just a couple of conclusions that you were saying, Chris, about the way you think energy policy sometimes is made.

I think part of the problem is that people haven't thought energy policy mattered. And there wasn't really an interest in the top of government about energy. So I left office 11 years ago and there have been 23 energy ministers since. Uh, so that's including all levels of energy ministers. And that the idea that you get sensible policy when people last a few months, um, is for the birds.

So, um, I, okay, clearly I would have loved to done it for another 11 years, but that opportunity wasn't there. Um, the, uh, in terms of our manifesto ideas, which have come out of it. So we've decided, I think that we need to reform planning. We need to reform tax. We need to reform local government, reform land owner, land ownership, reform, social security, reform the electrical, sorry, electoral system, ban incompetence, um, and then get going and be more Victorian.

I think so. So For the, those involved in the political parties who are here, that is your, your job, and you've got 12 months. But, uh, our panel, to Chris, to Guy, to Jan, to Chris, please show them your huge appreciation.

Matt: So Matt and Fraser back again, just to wrap up. We'll be back soon with a more usual episode of Local Zero, but it was great to bring that discussion to a wider audience than the one in the room. Many thanks to the University of Edinburgh and the British Institute for Energy Economics for allowing us to share this recording, and of course to our chair, For the event, Charles Hendry and all the excellent panelists

Fraser: As ever.

If you want to get involved in the conversation, check out our website, local zero pod.com. There are transcripts for all of our episodes there. Please also follow us on X brackets Twitter at local zero Pod, but bye for now.

Produced by Bespoken Media.

With thanks to BIEE and Edinburgh University's Business School for allowing us to record and share the discussion.