Transparency and accountability in climate action

The UK grid cannot cope with this plan nor have we put better plans in place to build what we need. The link below is well written and a realistic assessment of our grid. It says it all. The draft CCP transparently says we (the Scottish and UK governments) want to adopt this plan - it is of no consequence to us that someone else will pay - UK consumers and our vital services. Energy will not be secure and we will increase fuel poverty if this plan is adopted. Here is the link to a realistic assessment of what is being proposed. https://tinyurl.com/grid-stress

It is perfectly obvious that the plans are a foregone conclusion and any feedback now is around items that are minor in the scheme of things. The major issues of cost/benefit, impact on global emissions, government taking responsibility for infrastructure redesign, control of overwhelming developer and landowner interest as the only financial beneficiaries of these plans is perfectly transparent. A just transition is, what it says, just going to happen and can only get community support, beyond the beads offered, if it is redesigned so it is closer to the consumers (800 miles away from Scotland) or it is stopped.

I would like to see targets broken down to a more granular level and understand how these are communicated, monitored and actioned if targets are not being met. I know that choosing meaningful targets is key and I would be advised by experts on the subject. The last thing we want to have is perverse targets or targets that can be gamed. I also think the meaningfulness of the target should be reviewed and assessed as to whether they should be retired, refined or additional targets added. I suppose I would like clearer understanding of frequency of assessment against target and what are the incentives of meeting/ consequences of not meeting the targets

it is positive that a monitoring and reporting framework is part of the plan and vital that the parliament uses the outputs to hold the government to account for delivery of the plan. Early warning mechanism is helpful in this regard. To support this effort, all significant policy/programme and spending decisions should go through a Net Zero Assessment so both the Scottish Government and the parliament understand its carbon impact (up or down). This should be measured in a consistent and coherent way to allow for comparability across sectors. I refer to the briefing from the Climate Emergency Response Group which spells out how the Net Zero Assessment should be implemented. https://cerg.scot/embedding-climate-into-decision-making-the-role-and-roll-out-or-nza-2/

We mostly agree however, the statistics used don’t make clear enough how the Scottish government is going to track emissions effectively. We are aware that carbon budgets have been set for each area of industry however reading the plan, it is unclear how this will be monitored or measured. Not how individual sectors will be held accountable to meet these carbon budgets. Nor is it clear what support different sectors will be provided with to make any necessary transmissions or adjustments to current practices.

I agree with the peoples panel. The plan lays out its values which are laudable, but there is no actual monitoring and evaluation plan laid out within the CCP so far as I can see.

It seems there are lots and lots of suggestions for metrics to measure progress but this might be overwhelming for public understanding.

There doesn't seem to be a clear way to ensure that the accountability will work through all levels of government including local councils and below.

There needs to be a clear way for accountability to be assessed and delivered

It needs more actual explanation of what will be done with this data and who will be accountable if it is not being effective.

I understand the positive motivation but a strong monitoring process, firm targets and precise actions followed through on are needed. These will require ongoing review in the light of challenges and new technologies, and financial issues

There is nothing on the action to be taken against those held accountable if progress is insufficient. The public only get the chance once every five years to vote on the government’s performance.

The targets set for the plan arent specific enough and are set far into the period covered. Many of them depend on new technologies or asks from other government bodies or the private sector

What are the administrative costs and costs to sustainability for “ measuring carbon” and “Just Transition” There doesn’t seem to be any accountability laid out if things are not met.

Young people were unclear as to what this meant in Dundee.

Just transition measurements seem like a good starting point but no indication from my first reading about what would happen if indicators are not met. So where is the accountability?