Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 03 Feb 2000

03 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Sustainable Development

Harper, Robin Green Lothians Watch on SPTV

It is a great shame that there are not more people here for the first debate on sustainability in this Parliament.

I welcome the tone and content of Sarah Boyack's presentation. Members will not be surprised that I have certain reservations. I welcome the inclusion of Kevin Dunion, but I hope that he takes a seat near the door of the tent. Sarah Boyack will get the allusion.

I have recently picked up a book—or a summary of it—co-authored by Amory Lovins, the guru of environmental development in the United States. It is possibly one of the most important books since "Das Kapital" and it has a very different way of solving the world's problems, which members will be glad to hear. It is a pity that Tommy Sheridan is not here.

The authors say that the central problem is that we treat the natural world, our atmosphere, rivers, seas, forests, countryside, topsoil and biodiversity as if those were valueless commodities. Because we do not have to pay for natural resources, they are apparently free to be used up. The result is that they are being used up, destroyed or polluted at an alarming rate. I will not depress members with the figures, with which many members will be familiar. This is also the central message of the British Government panel on sustainable development, which published its sixth and final report yesterday. That was very good work from Sir Crispin Tickell.

The authors of "Natural Capitalism" give four principles that we could adopt now. First, we could use scarce resources with radically greater productivity. An example is given of a firm that, by providing services rather than objects, has cut its use of resources by 93 per cent. Production could be shifted into closed loops, in which there is no waste or pollution. As part of a continuous service to their customers, businesses could change from not only selling products to also providing them. We could act to reinvest in restoring, sustaining and expanding the stock of natural capital on which we depend.

I was sad to observe that, apart from Irene McGugan, I am the first person in the debate to mention biodiversity. I underline my support for much of what Irene has said.

Every time it arises, I would like to challenge the old canard that organic farming cannot be productively competitive. When a farmer converts to organic farming, there is a 20 per cent drop in productivity. However, in a 20-year experiment in the United States, which compared organic farming with conventional farming, side by side, on the same pieces of land, the productivity of five crops grown on the organically farmed land was found to be equal to that of the same crops grown using conventional methods.

Until the new national planning policy guidelines have been introduced, I look forward to defending Edinburgh and Lothian green belts against Murray Tosh's philosophy. We need to overhaul the planning system. It may be that we will need a

new definition of green belts and other sites that need protection. Until that time, I can assure those people to whom I have hitherto given my support in this area that they will continue to receive it.

I am sad that Sarah Boyack was unable to call in the A701 for further discussion. The commitment to cross-cutting is admirable, but how powerful is the ministerial group? Can it overrule? Can it initiate? Can it demand evidence or action? How many members of that group are here at this moment?

Jim Wallace has defined sustainability as economic growth, social development and environmental protection—that gives me cause for concern. The environment was left very much until last in that definition, while the end of the commitment to straight economic growth was clearly placed in the conditional tense.

We have to look beyond the borders of our small country. If we are to have a fair and equal world, the west needs to reduce its consumption of the world's resources by up to 90 per cent. At the moment, one billion people live in abject poverty. The message is that a reduction can be achieved. We can make choices that can start to tip economic and social outcomes in a positive direction. It is beginning to happen, because it is a necessity, it is possible and it is practical.

I commend Kenny MacAskill's comments on targeting. We must have targets, because if we do not achieve actual reductions in the consumption of fuel or in the amount of traffic in this country, or a considerable increase in the amount of land that is farmed organically, we will be nowhere near being able to live with the rest of the world with a clear conscience.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 03 Feb 2000

In the same item of business