Blog

The Emission Reduction Targets (Scotland) Bill is currently going through the Holyrood  Parliament - legislation necessitated by the fact previous set targets were not going to be met. It can be confusing to discern where the country finds itself in the drive for net zero and this guest blog from Andrew Tomlinson of Christian Aid - Justice and Peace Scotland's coalition partners in Stop Climate Chaos - offers a valuable overview.

Following announcements by the Scottish Government in the past few weeks, there is uncertainty about Scotland’s journey to net zero (the point where the greenhouse gas emissions being added to the atmosphere are balanced by those being removed), which is why we want you to engage your local politicians.

Why are Scotland’s domestic climate actions important?
Severe weather events continue to become more frequent due to climate change. People living in poverty have done the least to cause the problem but are paying the price and this is why Scotland’s journey to net zero is important. 

An example of this is in Bangladesh. Since August 2024, heavy rain and water release from upstream sources caused severe flooding in many districts, some areas got over 180mm of rain in just 3 days. An increasingly common occurrence due to climate change. Christian Aid has responded to the crisis by working with local partner Aid Comilla, a women-led organisation that aims to help 5,622 people (960 households) severely affected by the floods. The initiative included offering cash grants for various needs and provided hygiene and dignity kits.

The longer industrialised nations like Scotland continue to delay on climate, the more communities like Cumilla in Bangladesh will suffer the effects.

Scotland’s journey to net zero
Just over five years ago Scotland became one of the first industrialised nations to declare a climate emergency. In October of that same year the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, became law committing Scotland to ambitious and legally binding targets to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030, and by net zero by 2045. However, five years on Scotland has consistently missed its annual emissions reductions targets due to a lack of action to reduce emissions in key sectors such as heating, agriculture and transport.

Due to the targets being missed, the Scottish Government is in the regrettable position of having to change the law so that it doesn’t break it. 

In addition to this new bill, Shona Robison MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, recently announced spending cuts for within this budgetary year. This included cuts to money intended for active travel and nature restoration, and money from ScotWind ,which was earmarked for spending on the just transition to net zero, being used to cover budgetary shortfalls.  

The Scottish Government’s Programme for Government
More recently the Programme for Government, which sets out the government’s planned programme of activity for the coming year, continues to list tackling the climate crisis as one of its four priority areas and there is welcome mention of:
•    A Heat in Buildings Bill concerning the transition to low carbon heating
•    A Natural Environment Bill concerning nature recovery
•    The publication of the final version of the Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan. 
•    The publication and implementation of detailed Just Transition Plans for the transport, agriculture and land use, and buildings sectors.
However, the detail of these policies will all be important in moving Scotland from words to action in our journey to net zero. Within Stop Climate Chaos Scotland Coalition, there remains concern that the Programme for Government doesn’t go far enough. You can read the statement from Stop Climate Chaos Scotland here. 

What needs to happen next in Scotland?
The key sectors where Scotland needs to show significant progress in reducing carbon emissions are housing, transport and agriculture. 
•    The Heat in Buildings Bill should be based on the proposals in the consultation which closed in March 2024 (see SCCS consultation response). To deliver significant benefits to household bills, health and emission reductions, there must be a swift passage of the Bill (no later than winter 2024), with clear and ambitious dates and targets, and a timetable for developing secondary regulations, with a commitment to stakeholder engagement.

•    The Natural Environment Bill needs to include statutory nature recovery targets, should enable better recognition of the need to restore nature. In particular, this should give greater incentive to measures to restore Scotland’s internationally important peatlands, to expand native woodlands, and to better manage our marine and coastal habitats. All these natural systems can contribute to reducing net emissions, as well as protecting communities and businesses from the impacts of climate change.  

•    The final version of the Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan should have as a basis that there will be no new oil and gas licences and developments. This presumption should be accompanied by a clear plan to manage the wind down of the North Sea basin, which is already maturing, and deliver a just transition for affected workers and communities.

What about the UK Parliament? 
MPs and MSPs have different responsibilities in terms of nature and climate, so it is important, if possible, to engage with both. Our main asks for the UK Parliament at Westminster are: 
•    Significantly increasing funding (in the form of grants, not loans) to support climate vulnerable countries to adapt, mitigate and respond when climate disasters strike – this is in addition to existing UK aid.
•    Taxing the vast profits of fossil fuel companies to help provide this funding. 
•    Halting all new oil and gas developments in the UK, and investing in good quality, secure green jobs.

How can you get involved?
Engaging with an MSP or an MP can lead them to raise issues in their respective parliaments. They need to know constituents care about nature and climate. Here are some actions you can take: 
•    Write to one of your MSPs explaining: 
-    Your concern about the deprioritising of climate by the Scottish Government and the worldwide impact of this. 
-    Asking them to support the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. We know that we cannot safely use all the fossil fuels that are in known oil and gas fields. To prevent a race to the bottom there needs to be an international treaty to halt the expansion of fossil fuel extraction, manage an equitable phase-out of coal, oil and gas, and lay the foundations for a true just energy transition. Many parliamentarians around the world have signed the treaty, as have businesses and even city councils, such as Edinburgh City council, Christian Aid has too. 

Engage with the UK Parliament:
•    Meet your MP using our Breaking Bread resource, there is a crib sheet about our climate asks for MPs and a short video that you can watch.
•    Sign the Christian Aid open letter to David Lammy asking him to step up the UK Government’s climate action 
•    Read the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland manifesto of policies for more specific asks to make to both MPs and MSPs.
It would be helpful for us to know if you do contact an MP or MSP as this helps inform our advocacy work. We are happy to help or answer any questions you have. You can also contact us if you would like to be kept informed about actions to take. You can contact Lucy le Roux our Campaigns and Advocacy Coordinator at 0131 220 1254 or Lleroux@christian-aid.org 

Photos: 

1. Aid Comilla’s supported beneficiaries returning home after receiving multipurpose cash grants, hygiene kits, and dignity kits. These provisions help meet their immediate hygiene needs, address the special dignity needs of women and adolescents. Credit: Aid Comilla

2. Aid Comilla’s volunteer is conducting surveys in flood-affected, water-stagnant areas, this is to select people for flood relief. This flood in August 2024 was unprecedented and long-lasting. Credit: Aid Comilla

Justice and Peace attended the Scottish Fair Trade Campaigner Conference in Paisley last week. This is an edited version of the challenging talk given by Kat Jones, linking Fairtrade to the climate crisis and the frustrations of COPs that, in the main halls, struggle even to pay lip service to the radical rethinks required to protect the planet and its most vulnerable citizens.  Currently working for APRS, Action to Protect Rural Scotland, she previously worked for Scotland’s civil society climate coalition – Stop Climate Chaos Scotland – for three years around the time of COP26.

We are in a climate crisis. The things that we have been talking about as climate campaigners for decades, which, until recently affecting the poorest nations: extreme weather, storms, droughts, intense rainfall and flooding, are now starting to be seen across the nations which draw the headlines: the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, the hottest temperatures ever seen in the USA, towns catching fire, unprecedented floods.

This isn’t new to those who have been campaigning and working with those in the global south. They have been experiencing climate related crop failures, unseasonal weather, droughts, floods, hurricanes for decades. But now it has come to us, even in the UK, which makes it much harder to ignore.

This brings to stark reality that, this is not just a climate crisis, it is a crisis of justice.  For those working on Fair Trade, the justice element will be particularly stark – we all know that those countries who have created the most emissions have suffered the least impact. And we know that those countries suffering the early impacts of climate change have had the least resources to deal with it while contributing the least to the issue. The emissions may be one-sided but the impacts are global.

What are the solutions?

So what are the solutions being put forward? Are they going to achieve an equitable, sustainable and liveable planet?  And where does Fair Trade fit into this? COP is a key space where climate solutions are discussed in an international area. And as to the question of whether they are putting forward solutions that will achieve an equitable, sustainable and liveable planet the answer has to be – not really….

There is a lot of trying to maintain the status quo, to make sure the winners in our current situation stay the winners. The solutions are always more of the same. ‘We just haven’t done capitalism properly’ is a reaction to the crisis. Are there too many emissions? …’Well that’s because no one owns the atmosphere, We just need a market in carbon credits…’

I’ve been to two COPs – one in Madrid, when COP26 had just been announced as coming to Glasgow, and COP26 itself. Fair Trade is also a long-time regular at COPs so some of you may know firsthand what I am talking about here.

In the official COP spaces the ‘blah blah blah’ – as Greta Thunberg so accurately described it – is all about the economic opportunities to be had in the climate crisis, new technologies that will save the situation, and about incremental changes that will save the planet, and how marketisation is the answer and ‘net zero’.
And what is Net Zero anyway? A phrase that was conceived by scientists to describe that the earth needed to reach a global balance of greenhouse emissions, and enshrined as a principle in the Paris agreement has become a buzz word used by everyone.

It has become meaningless as ‘carbon credits’ have flooded the market meaning that businesses can declare themselves net-zero but just purchasing credits that are of dubious value. Net zero, for responsible small business, like Fair Trade businesses, can also become a real burden.

Yes it is important for everyone to cut down emissions where we can, whether individuals and small business, but to actually achieve the vast reductions in emissions needed, fundamental changes in the economy, energy transport and tax and subsidies need to be made which are not in the gift of small business and individuals to make. By framing this mainly as a problem for everyone to solve, governments and fossil fuel companies can get away without making the massive changes and the massive decisions that they need to.

In a COP there is no stepping back to look at what has caused the problems, to objectively look at what needs to change and humbly acknowledging what a mess the ‘status quo’ has caused.

But I'm being unfair – not all the spaces at COP are like that. In the IPCC pavilion you will hear the urgency. I went out for dinner with a friend who I did my PhD with and now authors one of the IPCC chapters. The desperation in her colleagues – thinking that they wouldn’t be able to make a difference before it was too late- was palpable.

And in the side meeting rooms were indigenous people are talking about how everything needs to change – we need to see value where it really lies. But everywhere else the talk was of the economic opportunities to be grasped, the medicine for the planet is more of the same – marketisation, the role of capital, financing.
 
Inside COP a city of pavilions, representing countries, and specific interests, has grown up around the negotiations. Everyone is there in the peripheral spaces to sell their products or their ideas. COP26 had more delegates than a cop ever had (nearly 40,000) – despite being the covid COP. And the vast proportion  weren’t there to be part of the official negotiations – there was also the most representatives of fossil fuel interests – 500 making them bigger than any country delegation.

The pavilions felt like a huge and no-expense-spared trade fair. While using the free wifi and coffee at the UK Pavilion during COP26 I overheard a conversation where a man was evidently trying to sell his ‘net zero fighter jets’ to someone from the UK government pavilion…

But outside the security perimeter of COP were the civil society spaces. In my role at SCCS we played the part as local hosts and provided venues for civil society and campaigners, accommodation in people’s homes and in these places the talk wasn’t of opportunities, status quo and incremental change – talk was of ‘justice’ and ‘systems change’.  Climate was seen as just one symptom of a wider malaise.
The talk there was about the extractive nature of our global economy– taking from the poorest to deliver wealth to the richest. A zero sum game where one is the winner and the other is the loser.

But trade was never supposed to be like that. The first economists saw trade as a way that everyone benefits from the exchange. Adam smith has been badly represented. Trade has always happened and it was successful when it benefited both parties.

What trade has come to mean is that benefits accrue to the side with the power to set the rules of the game and the externalities accrue to the communities with the least power and to our planet.

But in those outside spaces of COP the talk was also about how we change the structures that perpetuate injustices and exploitation of people and of our home planet.

So if we want to change the system what can we do? We’re not likely to overthrow capitalism soon. So we need some working models of how to do things differently - how does Fair Trade strike you as a possibility for this?

David Graeber, the anthropologist,  defined direct action as ‘living as if you are already free’ – that is, using your own actions to bring about the future freedoms that you want to see. And, of course, Gandhi said something like this almost exactly a hundred years ago which has been paraphrased as “Be the Change you want to see in the world” - the theme for this year’s Fair Trade fortnight.

What ‘living as if you are already free’ meant to us at COP was to counter the overpricing of accommodation by hotels and Airbnb with our homestay network where 1200 Glaswegians offered space in their homes to activists. And by creating a platform for events that we open to everyone doing events from NGOs, faith groups, activists and other civil society groups. By bringing together groups that had venues available – upstairs rooms in pubs, church halls, community meeting rooms, and unused offices , if only for an hour, to offer them at cost price to campaigners and other NGOs. Repurposing unused shop front space as artist galleries. And by hosting a welcoming space for activists wherever they had travelled from to gather, discuss and also to plan action. 

Having read David Graeber since then I would recognise this as ‘living as if we were already free’ - seeing the ways the world worked, inflating hotel and AIrbnb prices, no venues affordable, and starting to do it differently. And of course the Fairtrade movement have been doing the same thing with trade for more than 30 years. Reframing trade as a mutually beneficial relationship of equals. Back to its origins you might say. 

Fair Trade resets the balance – Fair Trade is transgressive of capitalist norms of operating – it is something that is beneficial to both parties and is explicitly not exploitative. Where people come before profits (and not just in the marketing). Trade that is not extractive of human potential and our planetary abundance. We can see the economy that we don’t like and we can remake it – that is what Fair Trade has done.

Bringing back principles of partnership and equal partners – where both sides benefit and it adds value to communities and to planet.  We need a new model for trade for the future that will enable us to navigate the scale of change that is needed to deal with the climate crisis. What better than Fair Trade?

Annemarie Ward, CEO of Faces and Voices of Recovery UK, reflects on the spiritual journey that has anchored her tireless efforts to support those in the grip of addiction and change government policies that are failing them.

I embarked on my first pilgrimage to Medjugorje in June 2019 seeking nothing more than a bit of rest and a break from my routine. However, what I encountered was far beyond anything I could have imagined—so profound that I hesitate to even put it into words for fear of sounding irrational. Yet something extraordinary did happen. Upon returning to Glasgow, one phrase kept echoing in my mind: ‘You keep talking, we keep dying’. This haunting message became the driving force behind a campaign that has shaped my work and life ever since.

Over the past five years, the charity I work for, Faces and Voices of Recovery UK, has increasingly focused on urgent advocacy efforts. While we continue to celebrate recovery from addiction through our events, we have also taken a more active role in holding the Scottish Government accountable for the serious deficiencies in their drug and alcohol services and policy infrastructure, and established the UK’s first-ever addiction advocacy case worker service.

Despite substantial investment in harm reduction strategies such as substitute prescriptions, heroin-assisted treatment, and needle exchanges—what the industry often refers to as 'treatment'—there remains a stark lack of support for detox, community and residential rehab, and abstinence-based services…which are the services the public typically associated with the word ‘treatment’.  I believe this imbalance is a significant factor contributing to the alarming rates of drug and alcohol-related deaths.

Just recently, the Scottish Health Minister Neil Gray admitted that the government intends to allocate only 140 rehab beds for the entire country. This provision, they claim, is intended to serve 1,000 individuals annually, based on the unrealistic assumption that each stay would be limited to a mere six weeks. To suggest that 140 beds could address Scotland's severe drug addiction crisis is more than inadequate—it’s an outright scandal. Six weeks might barely scratch the surface of addiction recovery; it is far from sufficient to address the complex, deep-rooted issues that individuals face. True rehabilitation requires extended, intensive care and ongoing support, which this minimal provision utterly fails to deliver.
This gross underestimation by the government is not just a failure—it’s a deep betrayal of Scotland’s citizens. Rehabilitation isn’t a quick fix; it’s a long-term process that demands substantial investment in time, resources, and care. By setting such a low target, the government is effectively declaring that the lives of those struggling with addiction are not worth the necessary commitment.
The broader picture exposes a systemic failure in Scotland’s approach to addiction treatment. The focus appears to be more on managing numbers than on genuinely addressing the crisis. The idea that 140 beds could suffice in a country where 50,000 people are in addiction treatment each year is a damning indictment of the government's scant seriousness in tackling this issue.

When we call for more balanced investment, we often face fierce opposition, with some accusing us of being anti-harm reduction. But nothing could be further from the truth. Our goal is not to dismantle harm reduction but to ensure that every person struggling with addiction has access to the care that best suits their needs. The conversation should not be about choosing between harm reduction and abstinence/recovery, but rather about ensuring that both are available in a way that truly meets the needs of those we aim to help.

Exposing the industry’s shortcomings has undoubtedly stirred up a lot of anger towards me. I knew that speaking out would cause discomfort, but I underestimated just how deep the backlash would be. Yet, the truth needed to be brought to light. Challenging the status quo and highlighting the failings of a multi-million-pound industry that for too long have been overlooked is never easy, especially when it disrupts the comfort of those who profit from the existing system. I understand that my actions have made me a target for criticism and resentment, but my focus has always been on the greater good—advocating for those who are often forgotten and pushing for the changes that are so desperately needed. Particularly when the most vulnerable, living in our poorest communities, are dying in the greatest numbers. In Scotland, people in the most deprived areas are more than 15 times as likely to die from drug addiction compared to those in the least deprived areas.
Throughout this journey, my faith has been my steadfast anchor. There were moments when I felt so overwhelmed by the challenges I faced that I sought refuge in daily mass, drawing on the comfort and protection that only my faith could provide against the abuse and character attacks I endured. In those difficult times, we poured our energy into drafting what is now known as the Right to Recovery Bill—a response to the misleading narratives and divisive arguments that have obstructed meaningful progress in addressing Scotland’s addiction crisis. Although initially overlooked by some political parties, the bill was eventually embraced by the Tories and has since gained significant support. It is now poised to be debated in the Scottish Parliament, offering a crucial opportunity to ensure that both harm reduction and recovery-focused services are enshrined in law.

I have returned to Medjugorje on four occasions, including one deeply blessed four-week visit. My most recent trip was just last month, when I brought my son and his two flatmates to the Youth Festival. During those first few days, I experienced a profound sense of relief, as if a heavy burden I had carried for five years was being lifted. For years, I had felt compelled to fight and educate as many people as possible about this issue, but in Medjugorje, it felt as though that obligation was easing. It was a strange sensation, almost difficult to trust because the burden had been so heavy and the journey so lonely. I sought counsel from various spiritual directors, and they all agreed that I was no longer required to fight with the same intensity as before—that I could choose when and how to continue, rather than feeling it was my sole responsibility.

I often reflect on my first visit to Medjugorje, particularly the moment when I attempted to climb Apparition Hill for the first time. Overcome by the heat and discomfort, I decided to turn back and abandon the climb. As I began my descent, a beautiful young woman stopped me, visibly shocked by my decision to turn around, especially since she informed me that Our Lady was about to appear to one of the visionaries. For a brief moment, I wondered if she might be a bit mad, but I politely offered my excuses, explaining that I was too hot and sore, and turned to continue my descent.

Just then, she asked if she could ask me a couple of questions. The next thing I knew, a very large camera was suddenly in my face, operated by a strikingly handsome young man whose features were partly obscured by the camera. (Until that moment, I had never been asked to speak on camera) The beautiful woman then asked me two questions: why I had come to Medjugorje, and what I was prepared to do. The words that came out of my mouth felt as though they were spoken by someone else. I found myself begging our Lord to allow me to serve him, fully aware of my unworthiness.

At the time, my response surprised me, but now, looking back on how far I’ve come both spiritually and in this campaign and what happened next  I see clearly that God works in mysterious ways. Every time I’ve been asked to speak in front of a camera since that night on Apparition Hill, I think of the beautiful young man and woman from that moment, and somehow despite my fear and inadequacy, I always find the words to respond.  My relationship with Our Lady and Our Lord has deepened, evolving into one of trusted friendship and comfort. I continue to beg for the opportunity to serve, knowing that the burden I’ve carried is, thankfully, lifting and that others are stepping forward to share in this work.

As I reflect on this journey, I realise that it has been as much about my own spiritual growth as it has been about advocating for change. With the burden easing, I hope others will join me in carrying the weight, allowing us to continue this important work together.