A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)

JUNE 2009
Preparing for a Changing Climate, Second Consultation to Inform Scotlands Climate Change Adaptation Framework:

a response to the Scottish Government

Summary
It is important that there is a sense of urgency in preparing for foreseeable and unforeseeable impacts of climate change.The Scottish Governments proposed Framework for adaptation lacks such urgency. Although effective action needs strong leadership from government, the Framework is too much top-down, focusing primarily on governmental, specialist/technical actions.Adaptation policy must be publicly-owned and requires engagement with citizens in creating awareness and establishing publicly acceptable policies. The Framework makes much of the potential of cost-benefit analysis to help make difficult choices. This should be used with care. It can only be rigorous when costs and benefits can be expressed in similar, quantitative terms. It will not be possible to avoid value-based judgements, which should involve stakeholders from civil society, policy-making, science, business, planning and politics and to ensure that competing interests and values are explicitly recognised and negotiated. Mitigation and adaption must not be thought of or implemented as separate policies.They must be integrated, and there should be an explanation of how mitigation priorities will interact with adaptation. The Framework ignores the profound implications that mitigating and adapting to climate change have for Scotlands physical infrastructure, and the potential for cascading infrastructural collapse.Adaptation measures should increase resilience by ensuring that business and economic policies incentivise locally-controlled, networked solutions to agriculture, food and water supply, energy supply, transport and management of hazardous materials. The Framework should contain actions to ensure broadly distributed knowledge, understanding and involvement in decision-making about adaptation priorities; secure and strengthen the foundations of democracy, which include publicly-funded, trustworthy science, autonomous civil society, social justice and human rights; and improve the understanding of the social, psychological and cultural processes of adaptation. Consideration of the implications of adapting to and mitigating climate change should be accompanied by a consideration of whether the current model of resource use and economic development is sustainable. The Adaptation Framework must emphasise the necessity for societal and economic adaptation. The key barriers to effective climate change adaptation are: 1) failure to recognise the scale of the problem by government at all levels; 2) failure to realise that mitigation and adaptation are integrated; 3) lack of recognition of the importance of political leadership; 4) lack of critical analysis of the underlying model of economic growth and its dependence on accelerating consumption of resources.

A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)
Global imperatives & national responsibilities
1 This generation faces an unprecedented environmental challenge which it must address and on which its governments must show leadership. Human demands on the natural systems of the Earth, on the chemistry of atmosphere and oceans, the productivity of soils, the diversity and fertility of the biosphere and the stock of mineral resources, have vastly depleted that environmental capital and the flow of goods and services that it yields and on which humanity has come to depend.There is an urgent imperative to develop novel, sustainable patterns of economic and social behaviour. Doing so will inevitably require major changes in lifestyle. The most immediate issue is that of climate change. Human emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, over the last 200 years have unquestionably increased their atmospheric concentrations to levels not seen for over 650,000 years.There is a high probability that this is the cause of many rapid changes in climate that are now occurring and that it will lead to what has been called dangerous climate change. The global response to this challenge has so far been ineffectual. Notwithstanding many good intentions, the rate of emission of carbon dioxide has approximately doubled since the year 2000, which is 35% greater than most climate change models have so far allowed for. It is also a matter of concern that although the models developed by climate scientists have correctly predicted the direction of recent climate change and the parts of the Earth that will initially be most strongly effected, such as the polar regions, they have underestimated the rate of change. In the face of such trends and scientific uncertainties about the behaviour of a de-stabilised climate, urgent action is vital.This should be both to adapt to change that may now be inevitable as a consequence of past emissions and to mitigate extreme future change by acting urgently to reduce future emissions. Many of the actions that are required, for example changes in the use of transport and energy, are both means of mitigating change and adapting to changing circumstances. It is vital therefore that mitigation and adaptation strategies are completely integrated. Although we recognise that greenhouse gas emissions directly produced in Scotland are a relatively small part of the global total, on a per capita basis we are responsible for a disproportionate share of global 7 emissions: currently three times that of China and five times that of India; and 15 times and 30 times respectively if we consider emissions over the last 200 years. Moreover, because we import many of our manufactured goods rather than creating our own, we effectively export our emissions to others.The ethical imperative is for the burden of change to be borne according to the extent that we individually pollute the global atmospheric resource. It is the per capita consumption of that resource, measured by the impact of emissions on the atmosphere, that is the central, ethical, imperative.

Major comments on Scotlands governmental response

6 The Scottish Government and Parliament are creating a legal and policy framework for a Scottish response to these imperatives (in parallel with an analogous framework being developed by the UK Government) through the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, the establishment of an Adaptation Framework, by associated policies and by leading through example. The Scottish Parliament has agreed to the general principles of a climate change bill, largely directed towards Scotlands contribution to climate change mitigation, and is shortly to debate definitive proposals for the bill.The issue of adaptation is being addressed initially through a two-part consultation process.This paper contains the Royal Society of Edinburghs response to the second part of the consultation Preparing for a Changing Climate.The RSE has already commented on the proposals for a Climate Change (Scotland) Bill1 and on the first part of the consultation for an Adaptation Framework2. Given the global context, the strategic framework to increase Scotlands resilience to the consequences of a changing climate represents a positive contribution towards building a Scotland-wide response and is welcomed by the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE). It is an indicator of the Scottish Governments commitment to dealing proactively with potential social and ecosystem damage and ameliorating its impacts. However, we have a series of major reservations which it is vital to address at this stage of concept develop ment, prior to any proposals for legislation or policy. We highlight them here, as they are inadequately addressed in the consultation questions to which we respond in the appendix.

1 The Climate Change (Scotland) Bill: a response to the Scottish Parliaments Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Paper 09 03, February 2009 (www.royalsoced.org.uk/govt_responses/2009/climate.pdf) 2 Adapting our ways: Managing Scotlands Climate Risk: a response to the Scottish Government. Paper 08 18, October 2008 (www.royalsoced.org.uk/govt_responses/2008/Finalresponse_adaptation.pdf)

A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)
Urgency and leadership 9 The Government places great reliance on simulation models of climate change as means of informing more robust plans and policies.Although such models are a valuable source of forecasts of potential future trends, and although we would be the last to doubt their utility, it is important that their limitations are recognised. Given the complexity of the global climate system, and particularly as the Earth moves further from the natural states from which many climatic parameters are derived, we must be aware that the rate of change in particular could be far greater than currently anticipated, as has occurred in recent years in polar regions. Some changes might not be incremental but step changes. 10 We are concerned that the consultation document lacks an appropriate sense of urgency, both about the potential rate and magnitude of climate change, the implications for society and the urgency of adaptation. Timescale is a major factor as business and industry will clearly need early signals from government in order to plan and implement measures to adapt. This will require a step-change in implementing a coordinated and deliberate approach on the part of government. In facing up to these challenges, leadership from government that stimulates action and support from across public services, business and civil society will be essential3. If the Framework is to effective, it must capture and inspire action on these crucial aspects. Implications for Infrastructure 11 Much of the national infrastructure of railways, roads, bridges, sewers, energy plants, electricity transmission and waterworks installed in the 19th and early 20th century was robust and resilient, not only satisfying the needs of contemporary society, but also providing the basis for the subsequent growth of population and economy.Adapting to climate change and mitigating its long term impacts will require a massive shift in the configuration and operation of this infrastructure. These elements of infrastructure have become increasingly interactive.They are parts of networks along which mass, energy or information are transported. In scientific terms they are coupled, that is each one interacts with each other, and the responses of one to another are often non-linear. They must therefore be regarded as a single, though multi-component, infrastructural system, which has the potential for chaotic behaviour and cascading failure. Examples of such failures are increasingly common worldwide. Increasing dependence on mobile communications, run-down of back-up systems and just-in-time services have all reduced the resilience of the infrastructure on which daily life and the economy depend.Vulnerability to risk of major catastrophe is increased by reliance on the overly-centralised, rationalised,tightly coupled economic infrastructures characteristic of liberalised markets. 12 The direct impacts of climate change on these systems, and particularly the consequences of the changes that will be necessary if we are to reach the carbon emissions targets of an 80% reduction by 2050, have profound implications for their operation and long term resilience, and for the investment in them that will be required. The Framework is silent on this key issue. It must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Recent studies make it clear that the level of vulnerability of business and government process and service delivery are not well understood in boardrooms or government. 13 The priority in adaptation measures therefore should be to ensure that business and economic policies incentivise locally-controlled, networked solutions to agriculture, food and water supply, energy supply, transport and management of hazardous materials. Networks are less likely to magnify failure or accidents, and more likely to adapt flexibly and coherently and to continue functioning after the failure of one part.A critical part of such networks is their democratic governance and public accountability. Secondary consequences of climate impacts elsewhere 14 A very serious criticism of the consultation document is its exclusive concern with direct impacts in Scotland, as if Scotland were a metaphorical island, isolated from events elsewhere. It is indeed possible that the direct effects of climate change in Scotland could be relatively minor compared with elsewhere: possibly a wetter, warmer climate with some small increase in sea level, with implications for plant and animal ecology, for coastal and river plain flooding or salinification of coastal land. 15 However, the secondary effects could be such as to dwarf these. Severe climatic shifts elsewhere, such as, for example, the failure of the Asian monsoon or dramatic reduction in water availability in sub-tropical zones, could have severe secondary effects on Scotland. They could lead to dramatic changes in the global availability of food, disruption of economic systems and patterns of trade, conflict over resources, major population movements and immigration pressure and increased risk from spread of tropical diseases of humans, plants and animals (the recent spread of tropical animal diseases such as Blue Tongue Disease,African Horse Fever and West Nile Fever being cases in point4).

3 Note for example that the annual report on environmental performance of government buildings saw an increase in energy use of 2.5% in the last year. 4 The Control of Animal Diseases in Europe. Paper 08 20, November 2008 (www.royalsoced.org.uk/govt_responses/2008/blue_tongue.pdf)

A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)
Awareness and engagement by citizens 16 We are concerned that the actions identified by the Framework are to be implemented though a top-down process dominated by government, government agencies and technical specialists. The Scottish Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours Survey 2008 (SEABS08)5 shows that about 50% of citizens know little or nothing about climate change and about one third distance themselves from any responsibility for it.The capacity of government to plan and implement non-trivial changes, particularly where there is uncertainty about the reasons for them, or where long timescales are involved, depends fundamentally on acceptance by citizens that the issue is important and the policy response is appropriate. Without such public engagement, government may be loath to make the difficult choices that may need to be made. 17 Public support on this uniquely difficult issue requires two complementary responses. It requires awareness of the issues and it requires deliberative public engagement about appropriate responses. Stimulating awareness needs political leadership at national and local levels in which government is honest about the serious threats posed by climate change and the difficult decisions that will be needed if society is to adapt to prospective changes and mitigate longer term threats. It needs to mobilise bodies within civic society (for example, the RSE is shortly to launch a major Inquiry on adapting to climate change, Facing up to climate change, which will contain a major public engagement element), universities and schools. Public engagement is not a matter of persuading the public about the need to adopt pre-determined policies, but to engage with citizens in a deliberative dialogue to determine what the best policies might be. Such dialogue processes are also overdue for adoption in Scotland if the aspirations at the time of devolution for stronger development of civic society are to be realized.They are notably absent from the current consultation. 18 There is also a broader issue. If democratic society is to face some of the challenges listed in paragraph 1, it must be able to make difficult and bold decisions whilst retaining democratic consensus.There is some doubt whether an individualistic liberal democracy can act as an effective enabler of both mitigation and adaptation to climate change, given its mix of pluralist politics, materialistic values and market short-termism6. This makes it critical that the Adaptation Framework includes actions designed to secure and enhance the foundations of democracy, which include publiclyfunded, trustworthy science, autonomous civil society, social justice and human rights. Failure to address these issues will make society less resilient to challenges to social and economic security and resilience such as that of climate change. The use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in decision making 19 Cost-benefit analysis is often mistakenly supposed to be a means of making some of the difficult decisions alluded to above. CBA seeks to price such things in a way that enables them to be inspected and weighed against each other from the convenience of spreadsheets in offices 7. It can only be rigorously used if costs and benefits can be accurately expressed in similar numerical terms. If qualitative values are expressed on either side of the equation, the method loses rigour. Decision-makers must not regard CBA as providing factual answers to difficult political dilemmas. Where essentially political choices are required that attribute value to life, health, biodiversity, soil, clean air and so on, CBA may obscure the value judgements and competing interests, embodied in the attribution of costs and benefits. It is particularly contentious where interests are unstable and decisions are made in conditions of uncertainty and indeterminacy, such as those associated with predicting climate change and its impacts. Moreover, extreme, unpredicted events, such as those associated with Hurricane Katrina in the USA, are not typically captured by conventional CBAs8.Analysis of US disaster management under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for example shows how poorly the conventions of CBA worked to prepare US agencies for the impact, and costs, of Hurricane Katrina.The translation of the complex, unpredictable and uncertain qualities of climate into governable realms of quantifiable risk must not be used as a means to avoid the difficult public debates which are needed.

5 Davidson, S, Martin, C and Treanor, S (Ipsos MORI), Scottish Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours Survey (SEABS2008, Summary). Government Social Research, Research Findings No 5 (2009). 6 Diamond, J Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, London: Penguin (2005); Shearman, D and Smith, J The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, London: Praeger (2007); Giddens,A The Politics of Climate Change, Cambridge: Polity Press (2009) 7 Lohmann, L, Toward a different debate in environmental accounting: the cases of carbon and cost-benet,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier (2008) 8 Perrow, C., The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial and Terrorist Disasters, Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2007

A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)
20 The deliberative dialogue referred to in paragraphs 16-18, involving stakeholders from civil society, policy-making, science, business, planning and politics in assessing the potential costs and benefits of different adaptation measures for different interests is far to be preferred. For public trust in government to be embedded, and to ensure that vested interests are not being protected over and above the interest of poorer sections of society, it is essential that the assumptions used to build any CBA, and the values attributed to human life, health, bio-diversity and so on, are made available and accessible for public deliberation. The disproportionate focus on rural areas 21 In our response to the first phase adaptation consultation, we commented on the disproportionate focus on the rural environment.We re-iterate that comment here. Both the direct implications of adapting infrastructure to climate change, and the indirect impacts as described in paragraphs 14 and 15 have major implications for urban areas.These must be addressed in any subsequent bill. Questioning underlying economic assumptions 22 The ministerial foreword to the consultation document refers to the opportunity for all of Scotland to flourish through sustainable economic growth. If climate change and the other issues referred to in paragraph 1 do develop in the damaging and challenging ways that they might, the assumption that sustainable economic growth is possible may be severely tested. In any case, there is considerable doubt that economic growth alone can deliver enhanced societal wellbeing9. It may soon become necessary to scrutinise the rationale for commitment to the current macro-economic model of sustainability10 and economic development.The current financial crisis provides a rare opportunity to initiate such a debate. It should not be missed. 23 Deregulated financial markets, and expansion of access to credit, have stimulated accelerating consumption of natural resources, with global carbon emissions increasing by 40% since 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol base year).The values and beliefs underpinning credit-driven growth and limitless resource use are however likely to be poor guides to how to adapt to the major uncertainties of climate change, with its impacts on water, food and energy security.This makes it critical that the Adaptation Framework engages directly with the necessity for societal and economic adaptation, so that the quality of life and standard of living can be maintained using fewer resources more efficiently. Failure to include this will mean less resilience to the threats that climate change creates for social and economic security. Integrating mitigation and adaptation 24 It is important that mitigation and adaptation are not developed or regarded as separate issues.Although the consultation document acknowledges the need to treat adaptation and mitigation as mutually reinforcing elements of strategy, the Framework would be stronger if this ambition was made central, and if there was an outline explanation of how mitigation measures will interact with adaptation. The Framework should ensure that adaptation is not seen as conveying a message that business as usual is fine in other respects. The priority for joined-up government 25 Climate is a complex cross-cutting issue involving all areas of policy. Such issues are problematic for government, proving difficult to manage across the administrative boundaries through which government chooses to manage its business. The constraints of these boundaries frequently produce lack of coordination or mutually contradictory policies.We therefore welcome the establishment of the Climate Change Delivery Group within the Scottish Government with responsibility for the mainstreaming of climate change through government.We reiterate our earlier suggestion that adaptation proofing, integrated with mitigation proofing, should be introduced and all new policies should be tested against them.

9 Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. The Spirit Level: why more equal societies almost always do better,Allen Lane, 2009 10 see Jackson, Prosperity Without Growth, Sustainable Development Commission (2009)

A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)
APPENDIX 1: Responses to Specific Questions in the Consultation Document Q1 The Government wishes to improve understanding of the consequences of a changing climate. 1a Do you think the following six actions are the most appropriate actions to achieve this: 1) Support the further development of climate models; 2) Develop detailed assessments of risks and opportunities posed by a changing climate; 3) Cost the risks and opportunities presented by a changing climate; 4) Work with Scottish sectors to cost risks presented by a changing climate; 5) Support the coordination of climate change research across Scotland with UK partners; 6) Investigate the benefits of a centrally coordinated evidence base. 1 No.The six actions to improve understanding focus on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which are likely to be helpful tools, but will not in their own right obviate the need for judgements that will need to address a large measure of uncertainty. Over-reliance on successive iterations of climate change risk assessment and CBA may have the unintended consequence of increasing the risk of failure to adapt. There are at least three reasons for this: specific regions, such as low-lying river deltas, over a long (100-year) time frame to assess whether flood defence systems can withstand future extreme conditions.This is in addition to existing scenarios that cover plausible global mean changes (e.g., IPCC 2007). Extreme events are inevitably subject to high levels of uncertainty in the scenarios predicted by models.Although models have been successful in forecasting the trajectory of climate change, it is difficult for them to capture extreme events. This underlines the need for flexible coastal and river management strategies and for comprehensive monitoring of the climate system, in order to narrow the current uncertainties and to be able to identify the need for adaptation in such areas as flood management. 1b Are there additional actions that you think are necessary and if so, what are they? (Please identify up to three). Yes. 4 Action 1. Science-based or research-based decision making is difficult for government, which has limited direct access to such knowledge, particularly in complex multidisciplinary areas such as climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation. It will be vital for government to be able to call on the expertise that lies outwith government in the universities and research laboratories. Bodies such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh have an almost unique capacity to identify, and in some cases coordinate, input from non-governmental experts. Action 2. It is important in periods of major social and economic change to secure and strengthen the foundations of democracy. In particular, the trade-offs that are likely to be required need to be publicly acknowledged and negotiated. For example, the interests of the construction industry in cutting short-term costs have to be offset against the public interest in safe buildings resilient to extreme weather; the use of flood plains for housing has to be balanced against the costs of flooding for the households concentrated in areas at risk, and so on. Such choices often entail costs for some sections of society and benefits for others. For public trust in government to be retained, and to ensure that vested interests are not being protected over and above the interest of poorer sections of society, it is essential that the assumptions on which judgements or cost-benefit analysis are based, are openly expressed and accessible to public deliberation.Where possible, assessments of major areas of vulnerability, and priority action, should be made by independent, publicly accountable bodies.

Risk assessment methodologies do not adequately account for unpredictable events that have severe consequences11.This has been overwhelmingly demonstrated in the collapse of financial markets, where the monetary value of complex credit derivatives was reliant on mathematical modelling of the risk of default. The complexity and consequent opaqueness of the models, combined with their apparent authority, may mean that they are inaccessible to scrutiny by politicians, policy-makers and the public.Their outputs may then be treated as objective, when they are in fact founded on the uncertainties of statistical modelling of probabilities and the fallible judgement of human beings. Tools designed to support decision-making are often adapted by their users in ways not intended by their designers, with unpredictable consequences. Research on the use of climate model predictions, for example, shows that the way in which people and organisation used the outputs often differed markedly from the intentions of the scientists who developed them.

There is a need in climate models to explore high impact, low-probability climate change scenarios for

11 Taleb (2007) famously described these events as black swans or unusual incidents invisible in conventional risk calculation models, but which remain evident to common sense understandings.

A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)
7 Action 3. It is important that there is strong engagement with wider society in developing a less top-down approach than that envisaged by current actions, and an emphasis on networked, rather than hierarchical, forms of engagement with civil society, business and government.

Q2 The Government wishes to improve the capacity of individuals and organisations to adapt well to a changing climate. 2a Do you think the actions 7) raising awareness of current and projected unavoidable impacts of changing climate; and 8) providing decision makers with appropriate decision support tools and training, are the most appropriate actions to achieve this? No. 8 Action 7: Whilst we agree with the generality of the actions, we consider that they need to be set in a wider context.This issue not merely for government, but for society as a whole.There needs to be greater engagement and public dialogue and debate about what must be done. Bold decisions are much more likely to be taken if the issues are understood and if actions are supported by citizens. In this context, we have yet to develop a community of organisations and individuals to take forward the Scottish Climate Change Impacts Partnership (SCCIP) so that it reaches citizens and private sector actors.This should be a priority.Awareness of and involvement with an effective SCCIP will be a prerequisite for the dialogues that will be necessary if there is to be effective action.

Research on the economic effects of each of the decision support tools needed to integrate climate change adaptation into government economic policy Before actions on integrating climate change adaptation into government social policy can be implemented, there is likely to be a need for research into the social effects of each of the decision support tools. Research into the possibilities for adaptation of habitats and geo-conservation sites, and demonstration projects related to the best management practices for a range of protected areas (SSSIs, SACs, SPAs, National Parks,World Heritage Sites, etc.).

Q3 The Scottish Climate Change Impact Partnership (SCCIP) website provides a number of tools to help increase the resilience of organisations and infrastructure in Scotland to the impacts of a changing climate. Have you used the website or contacted SCCIP directly 11 A review of the website suggests that a series of workshop sessions with stakeholders should take place to identify gaps in these decision support tools, what research is needed to fill the gaps, whether it is designed well for its purpose and its audience and how an effective system of knowledge exchange can be created that will facilitate rapid implementation of the necessary adaptation procedures. Q4 What are the equalities implications of the proposed Framework? 12 These are by definition uncertain, and will need to be continuously monitored and reviewed. However, it is paramount that the Framework situates Scotland in the global context of climate change and adaptation. The current Framework is silent on major global inequalities of climate change and the likely forced migration of poorer populations, sometimes referred to as climate refugees to safer areas. Planning provision needs to be made for such migration and for inevitable civil unrest associated with competition for scarce resources which will have direct impacts on Scotland. 13 A significant contribution to such planning will be the establishment of an insurance, or reinsurance, scheme to make proper provision for catastrophic events, and to enable recovery without triggering further financial crisis and political instability. Given the role of government as insurer of last resort, the Government must work with the insurance industry to avoid risks of bankruptcy. The ADAM Report12 for example concludes that there is a risk that the EU Solidarity Fund could itself be overwhelmed by claims for disaster recovery. It proposes the substitution of the Solidarity Fund with a reinsurance scheme.

10 Action 8: We consider that this action begs a number of questions: are the appropriate decision making tools available and how are the ones available judged to be appropriate? The selection of actions listed in the consultation paper will clearly assist in providing support tools, but undoubtedly further research will be required as well as testing the outputs from the actions. The sorts of topics that will need further work include: Research on the effects of climate change on animal and plant species and their diseases, especially those of economic or conservation importance (e.g. the spread of vector borne diseases such as Bluetongue Disease) Identification of the sectors where support is urgently required and the research to provide that support, in order to work with Scottish sectors to help cost risks presented by a changing climate

12 Hulme, M, Neufeldt, H and Colyer, H; Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy (2009). The Final Report from the ADAM Project.Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)
14 In order to enhance public confidence in the espoused commitment to equality, the Government and the public sector must also lead by example by: Recognition of the scale of the problem by government at all levels 16 Achieving a reduction of 80% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will require massive changes in the way we live. For example, we will need to decarbonise transport, create new industries, change the pattern of food production, consumption and land use across the country, redirect employment skills and education, and alter the balance between urban centres and their rural hinterlands. This will increase the demand for electricity produced from low carbon emissions sources.The Government can help by recognising how all pervading the implications are to everything that we do. Realisation that mitigation and adaptation are integrated. 17 Although it is sometimes convenient to distinguish between mitigation and adaptation, there is a danger that the two are seen as separate problems, which could undermine efficient action and contribute to public confusion. Given the scale and complexity of the links between environment and socio-economic activity, the two cannot be dealt with separately. For example local micro-renewables provide substitution for fossil fuels, but also increase the resilience of local energy supplies in case centralised sources are disrupted by climate change events.The central issue is to drive towards a low-carbon economy as quickly as possible. Such an approach will be seen as coherent and effective in meeting the need for mitigation and adaptation. It is currently proposed that government departments account for carbon emissions.They should equally be expected to account for steps taken to increase resilience for adaptation measures. The need for political leadership 18 The problems are urgent and important. Evidence shows that the public is responsive to political leadership and as the Stern Report identified, these actions can have financial benefits. Here surely is the need for political leadership to outline a vision, engage the public in discussion and embark on a clear strategy, whereby the policies hang together. There needs to be bold, long-term thinking and a government that is able to maintain its strategic position when challenged by special interests.This is especially so given the impacts adaptation and mitigation will have on Scottish and UK infrastructure, such as transport, energy, water, communication and information technology and waste.

demonstrating reduced consumption of energy, water and manufactured goods, and prioritising reuse and recycling over replacement; ensuring capacity building training and education for the public service workforce, tailored to different occupational groups and oriented to changes needed in work practices and service provision; ensuring principles of sustainability, safety and security are used in all public buildings and infrastructure, travel and transport use, procurement contracts and energy supply

Q5. The Government wishes to identify barriers to effective climate change adaptation and to address these barriers, where possible. Are you aware of particular rules, regulations or government actions that pose a barrier to you in effectively adapting to climate change? If so, please identify up to three which you would like the Government to address. 15 The key barriers are: 1) recognition of the scale of the problem by government at all levels; 2) realisation that mitigation and adaptation are integrated; 3) the need for political leadership. There is significant and growing public concern about the risk of global warming and the problems that it will bring for children and grandchildren. There is a constant flow of environmental information in the media and many people are involved in recycling, buying smaller, more efficient cars, using trains, cycling in towns, insulating their houses etc. But problems arise when people come across decisions by different branches of government that seem uncoordinated and even counterproductive. Examples might be approaches to issues such as insulation, planning decisions on the location of pylons, incinerators and wind turbines, road pricing, and even the school curriculum. The RSE will shortly commence an Inquiry entitled, Facing up to climate change, to determine the barriers to change and to engage the public in discussion of possible ways forward.As pointed to earlier, initial discussions suggest that what is missing is a sense of urgency and direction and that the Government has a clear role to fill.

A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)
Q6 What roles could your organisation help with in building resilience to a changing climate? 19 The RSE has an unrivalled capacity in Scotland to bring together at short notice a cross-disciplinary range of experts of the highest standing, a powerful resource whose use the Society is willing to discuss with government. It would also be keen to help in engaging with the public in deliberative dialogue with individuals, industries and public authorities to help develop and respond to proposed government climate change policies; identify barriers to change and recommend measures for current and future policies in these areas and the timescales on which action might need to be developed; identify how increased resilience could be introduced to national and local government climate strategies and how such change could be managed. Q7 Any additional comments 20 The early part of our submission identifies a number of important issues that have not been addressed, or addressed adequately, in the consultation document. They are as follows:

Urgency and leadership (paragraphs 9-10) Implications for infrastructure (paragraphs 11-13) Secondary consequences of climate impacts
elsewhere (paragraphs 14-15)

Awareness and engagement by citizens (paragraphs

16-18)

Disproportionate focus on rural areas (paragraph 21) Questioning underlying economic assumptions
(paragraphs 22-23)

Integrating mitigation and adaptation

(paragraph 24)

The priority for joined-up government

(paragraph 25)

A d v ic e Pa p er (09-08)
Additional Information and References
In responding to this consultation the Society would like to draw attention to the following Royal Society of Edinburgh responses which are of relevance to this subject:

The Royal Society of Edinburghs submission to the Scottish Government, Proposals for a Scottish Climate Change Bill (April 2008) The Royal Society of Edinburghs submission to DIUS, AVision for Science and Society (October 2008) The Royal Society of Edinburghs submission to the Scottish Government, Adapting OurWays: Managing Scotlands Climate Risk (October 2008) The Royal Society of Edinburghs submission to the Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committees call for views on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill (February 2009)

Any enquiries about this submission and others should be addressed to the RSEs Consultations Officer, Mr William Hardie (Email: evidenceadvice@royalsoced.org.uk) Responses are published on the RSE website (www.royalsoced.org.uk).
Advice paper (Royal Society of Edinburgh) ISSN 2040-2694

The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) is Scotlands National Academy. It is an independent body with a multidisciplinary fellowship of men and women of international standing which makes it uniquely placed to offer informed, independent comment on matters of national interest. The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotland's National Academy, is Scottish Charity No. SC000470
10

11