At the weekend Scotland on Sunday reported that SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage) has identified over a hundred sites on the West Coast where the development of hydro power could damage sensitive environments. I agree a balance has to be struck.

John Muir wrote that when we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else. And that is true of water, even in Scotland, famous for its rainfall. It’s a great asset but it’s also a precious resource that sustains the ecosystem. We usually have plenty, although droughts on the West coast in recent years are a warning.

Scotland’s changing climate is already affecting our wildlife and landscape. If we’re serious about reducing emissions, moving towards renewable energy like hydro and away from fossil fuels makes sense but we also need to cut what we consume in the first place.

SNH is right to identify watercourses it believes are internationally important. Scottish Greens support renewable energy developments in the right place.

I’d like to see more support for urban schemes, like the Harlaw Hydro co-operative in Edinburgh. The community benefits, the grid gets clean energy and there’s minimal impact on the local environment.

Alison

The ban on neonicotinoid pesticides is good news. A radical stance by environmental campaigners has become mainstream, with the notable exceptions of Scottish and UK government ministers who remain completely out of touch.

The European Food Safety Agency spent months evaluating evidence and concluded that neonicotinoids pose unacceptable risks to the pollinating insects vital to our food supplies. Westminster’s Environmental Audit Committee agreed. Other European countries including France, Germany and Italy have banned them because they think there is enough evidence. And there’s been a growing body of support from groups like the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Earth and the RSPB.

Since January last year I’ve been calling for a moratorium, so I’m glad the chemicals will at last be banned, for two years, starting in December.

But what are neonicotinoids and why is their restriction a victory? Well, they’re used by farmers to help protect crops like oilseed rape and potatoes from unwelcome insects including aphids. They work on the insect’s nervous system, causing paralysis and death.

Usually, seeds are coated with the insecticide before being drilled into the ground. This contaminates the pollen and nectar, resulting in what you might call collateral damage. Non-target insects such as honey bees, bumblebees, hoverflies and butterflies are exposed to the very powerful toxins. In tests half the honeybees died from a dose that was only about four-billionths of a gram.

While most pollinators are only exposed to not-quite fatal doses, this appears to be enough to interfere with their foraging behaviour. Investigations in the field have shown honeybee nests treated with neonicotinoids grew more slowly and produced fewer queens.

When treated seeds are drilled into the ground, the coating loosens and can become airborne. Researchers have found neonicotinoids in soil from unplanted fields and in plants near treated fields. They’re also highly soluble, so remain in the ground for a long time. What long-term effect are they having on our soil? They can get into vegetation around fields and into water courses. While pollinating insects are important, is there a bigger picture we can’t yet see?

Pollinating insects provide a vital service worth at least £43 million a year to Scotland’s economy. It’s particularly important to our fruit growers. In Scotland ten per cent of crop production relies on pollination. Insects also form a crucial part of the food chain for birds and other animals. We could see a collapse across our natural and agricultural landscape if pollinators become scarce.

Comments about a “precautionary approach” by Scotland’s environment secretary at the weekend were incredibly frustrating. He wanted the ban delayed by two years to allow for more research, patronisingly describing the issue as “emotive” when, quite clearly, it is a rational one about evidence, economic cost and risk. What would be the point of implementing a ban after potentially years’ more damage?

Of course, there’s concern that not using insecticides could lead to a fall in yields but in many cases treatments are applied as insurance, a belt and braces approach. It’s also said the alternatives are worse. But studies from the US show some crops don’t benefit from the use of these chemicals at all. You have to remember that farming businesses rely on pesticide manufacturers for technical advice so there are commercial pressures at play here.

Neonicotinoids only account for one per cent of treatments in Scottish farming so the ban can surely be managed with minimal disruption.

There is the wider issue of chemical control of pests. There are other measures including crop rotation, encouraging natural predators and growing pest-resistant varieties. Perhaps we should be doing more to promote these options.

As Rachel Carson said in that perennial reminder of the folly of chemical treatments, Silent Spring: why should we tolerate a diet of weak poisons? Who would want to live in a world which is not quite fatal?

Alison

It’s a constant struggle to highlight the issue of air pollution because it’s a problem that’s hard to see, yet it kills as many people in Britain each year as obesity and road accidents combined.

The UK Government is still going through the courts to resist EU legislation that should have been implemented years ago, while the Scottish Government passes the buck to local authorities and local authorities remain frightened to take the necessary steps.

In Edinburgh it’s clear we need to reduce the traffic coming in, and those vehicles that do come in should be cleaner.

It’s alarming to have more pollution zones set up and the boundaries of others extended. What an embarrassment to have tourism hot spots like the Cowgate and the Grassmarket added.

The legislation governing the issue is weak. The Environment Act 1995 doesn’t force local authorities to meet air quality targets – only to “pursue” them.

This has permeated the council’s thinking. Its so-called action plan is about what it might do rather than what it will do: seminars and partnerships rather than tactics with budgets and timescales.

Businesses need deliveries but do we really need massive HGVs lumbering through our streets? On buses we have some cleaner vehicles but could do with proper funding from government to transform the fleet.

In Berlin restrictions have cut pollution by a quarter within a year. Lower speed limits promote cycling and walking. This has happened in Stockholm where most streets now have a 30kph limit – just 18 mph.

And on parking how about incentives so that owners of cleaner cars pay less? This already happens with residential permits thanks to the Greens. Could we extend it to our shopping streets?

3,000 Scots die each year from respiratory illnesses caused by air pollution. A problem that’s hard to see? I don’t think so.

Alison

The costs of this website have been met out of parliamentary resources.

The Parliament is not responsible for the content of other internet sites.

Over a year has passed since I led the first debate in the Scottish Parliament on cycling. That debate was partly in response to the very sad deaths of a number of cyclists on Edinburgh’s streets in early 2012.

It’s clear that the wider debate around cycling has moved decisively up the political agenda over the last year, where it must now stay. This shift is entirely down to the brilliant campaigning and hard work of a great number of people who share a vision of how things could be different.

In case we need any reminder of the need to improve cycle safety, just this week saw the sad case of 75-year old Audrey Fyfe, killed in Edinburgh, making the headlines again. Last Monday in London, a climate scientist dedicated to improving our understanding of our planet was killed pedalling to work.

Throughout the year, I have continued to push the Scottish Government and councils to take bolder action and to increase funding to make cycling the obvious, safe choice it should be for more Scots. I have listed just some of the things I’ve been doing below:

• Called for a ‘cycle safety summit’ by the Scottish Government following a string of cyclist deaths and accidents in Lothian. A special meeting of the Government’s road safety ground went ahead and I was invited along to speak. Among other things, I pushed the need for more 20mph zones in our residential and shopping areas.
• Had my cycling motion voted through unanimously by the Scottish Parliament after the first ever cycling debate. This means cycling supporters can more easily hold the Government to their commitments, especially on cycle training, road design and funding.
• Rode as part of, and spoke at, the magnificent Pedal on Parliament demonstration.
• Raised money for Andrew Cyclist by taking part in the Pedal for Scotland ride (see picture).
• Established the Cross Party Group on Cycling in the Parliament to build cross-party backing for stronger action and to discuss key topics around cycling at Holyrood.
• Spoke on a panel at the Cycling Scotland conference ‘Scots go Dutch’. My thoughts on that and ideas for finding more funding for cycling here.
• Hosted a joint event with Nordic Horizons with a guest speaker from the Danish Cycle Embassy. You can read my blog on that here.
• Led calls during this year’s budget process for 10% of the Scottish Government’s transport budget to be spent on active travel. The draft budget has an extra £6m over two years for cycling projects but this does not go nearly far enough.
• Met with Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney, along with fellow MSP and co-convenor of CPG Cycling Jim Eadie, to press the case for new funds for cycling. This resulted in an extra £4m for cycling projects.
• Most recently, I wrote to the Minister for Transport, Keith Brown, with my CPG Cycling colleagues Jim Eadie MSP and Claudia Beamish MSP outlining a proposal for a competitive award for an Danish/Dutch style segregated cycle lane project design. I feel that we need one fantastic example to prove the worth of proper infrastructure to planners in Scotland.

The proportion of cycle accidents on Scotland’s roads has been decreasing in recent years, which is welcome, but we cannot ease up on our efforts to embed cycling in our day-to-day activities. We need a radical approach to how we design our roads, and we should seize any opportunity as soon as it arises. Every time a road is dug up, a junction is changed or new signs are installed we should improve the layout for pedestrians and cyclists.

I will continue to push the Scottish government at every available opportunity for more funding for cycling, and to target the funding at the projects that will have the most positive impact on cycling in Scotland.

We should make it easy for councils to create cycle friendly streets and incrementally improve road infrastructure for cyclists whenever maintenance work is being carried out.  We must also be more ambitious about on-road cycle training for our children. At the moment only 30 per cent of Scottish schoolchildren receive such training – half the rate of England.  We also need to increase training and awareness of cycling for all road users, and to promote a culture of mutual tolerance and respect on our roads.  The Scottish Government says it’s committed to increasing the number of journeys by bike to 10% by 2020 – the current rate is estimated to be only one per cent and much work is needed if we are to reach this target.  Cycling provides so many benefits in terms of health, congestion, air quality and investment in cycling is sensible preventative spending.

It has been fantastic to receive such support from constituents on this issue. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with me if I can be of assistance, or if you have any specific ideas or concerns about cycling in Scotland.

As Northern Ireland introduces a charge for plastic bags, readers of the Courier will spot me in today’s paper explaining why a similar move in Scotland would be perfectly reasonable. Here’s what I have to say…

This is an obvious problem we can easily fix. We are paying a hefty price for a throwaway culture. Voluntary measures haven’t helped, and opponents are behind the times and out of step with public attitudes.

Around 600 million bags are used in Scotland each year – that’s 10 bags per person per month. They can take up to 1,000 years to degrade yet are only used for minutes. They end up in landfill or are incinerated, and the warm feeling we get by “recycling” soon disappears when we learn we send 21,000 tonnes of them every year to the Far East for processing.

Their production requires finite fossil fuels that we should be conserving. They don’t biodegrade; they photo-degrade. They break down into tiny toxic particles, polluting our soil and water. Whales and other wildlife, important to our tourism economy, die every year from eating discarded bags. Farm animals and birds suffer a similar fate.

The risk to tourism couldn’t be clearer. Keep Scotland Beautiful has launched a Clean Up Scotland campaign ahead of the Ryder Cup and the Commonwealth Games. On a recent trip to Perthshire I was appalled by the plastic littering motorway verges. Is this the image we want visitors to take home?

Retailers spend millions on these bags yet appear to give them out for free. The reality is we’re paying for them twice. Firstly through the goods we buy, secondly through our council tax as local authorities clear up our streets, beaches and parks. We’re also giving mega-rich retailers free advertising by lugging their logos about.

The evidence from Wales is that a small charge is easy to implement and hugely positive on shopper behaviour.

Even Los Angeles has completely banned plastic bags, helping reduce the rubbish buried in landfills, and giving hope of cleaner waterways and beaches.

The concern of some small businesses is understandable, although many see plastic bags as a cost they’d rather do without. Perhaps a levy should target big retailers first as they contribute the bulk of the problem.

Surveys suggest most people think a small charge is perfectly reasonable. Let’s put some common sense into our shopping.

Yesterday I was able to contribute to the debate in parliament on the Government’s revised report on climate change proposals and policies, known as RPP2.

Last week I warned the plan lacks ambition and is worryingly dependent on unproven technology.

Here’s what I said in yesterday’s debate:

As a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I was pleased to help scrutinise our section of the RPP. It was unfortunate that the final meeting took place on a day of public sector strikes against the cuts. Personally, in supporting those who were striking, I felt unable to cross the picket line. I thank the convener, my committee colleagues and the clerks for their flexibility in taking on board some of my input and comments in my absence.

I share some of the concerns that were raised by Rhoda Grant that, in voting down some sensible recommendations, Scottish National Party back benchers have not assisted their own Government colleagues to ensure that the finalised RPP2 is as robust as possible. I am sure that the minister is willing and able to accept constructive input.

The task of meeting our ambitious climate targets is not easy. It requires changes—small ones, bigger evolutionary ones and a few large-scale transformational ones—if we are to play a fair part in tackling the climate crisis. Transport did not form part of my committee’s scrutiny, but it is one area where poor choices are compromising the plan. It is impossible to double-think our way into a future of more motorways and to expect to meet our climate targets, too. I invite the minister to comment on what more can be done in that respect.

The RPP almost entirely neglects demand management or the possibility that the policies and the investment decisions that we make can reduce the number and distance of journeys that are taken by car. Such decisions are largely devolved, but the only transport policy in the current draft RPP is based on EU directives. We can see from transport that the Government’s scale of ambition is falling away. Comparing RPP1 with RPP2, we see that 500,000 tonnes of abatement have been lost every year from 2014 to 2018. The necessary policy changes have just been pushed further into the future, and emissions from transport have risen, not fallen. We largely know what needs to change.

Maureen Watt (SNP): Does the member not think that if we can move to hydrogen fuel cell or electric vehicles or to using other forms of fuel, that does not mean that we cannot build motorways to get people to their destinations?

Alison Johnstone: Although technological advances that reduce emissions will be welcome, traffic jams could still add to congestion, and not all vehicles will be so powered. What we really need to do is to spend more than just 1 per cent of the transport budget on cycling and walking. I hope that the final RPP2 will have active travel, car clubs, travel planning and ambitious demand management included as policy.

As the RACCE Committee has recognised, the only way in which we will meet our future targets is if all the policies and proposals are implemented and if the EU shifts to the 30 per cent reduction target. There is no margin built into the plan. We heard real concern from witnesses that the EU will not move to 30 per cent, so the RPP needs explicitly to work out domestic actions to mitigate that risk. The EET Committee recommended that.

The same risk exists for carbon capture and storage. Witnesses fear that the 2020 target will not be met. Peterhead now has preferred bidder status, but the RPP is predicated on CCS and we cannot put our heads in the sand about the risk.

Electricity gets lots of attention, but the provision of cheap and clean heat is important too. After all, heat accounts for more than half of our energy demand. I hope that the final RPP will provide more ambition and detail on delivering district heating. From the evidence that we heard in scrutinising the RPP and in previous committee work, it is clear that the public sector has a key role to play in that.

The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee looks forward to the forthcoming heat policy and has asked the Government to provide more details on how it will support community district heating schemes and off-gas-grid properties to get out of fuel poverty. I hope that the minister will confirm that the Government will provide that in due course and will listen carefully to the recommendations of the expert commission on district heating.

Cheap, low-carbon heat will be important in tackling fuel poverty, but high-quality insulated homes are essential too. Stop Climate Chaos, the existing homes alliance and others have all called for the proposal for minimum efficiency standards in the private sector to be upgraded to a policy and implemented by 2015. That would help to bring our existing housing stock up to standard, lever in investment and jobs for local trades and help to meet targets in a difficult sector.

Scotland has played a leading role in setting the bar high, promoting climate justice and inspiring ambition, but we missed our first target. That is not the end of the line, but it is a clear signal that we need to match ambition with a credible plan with fully funded climate policies that have headroom built in to address the possibility of long, cold winters, clear milestones to track our success and bold Government action on the big challenges of, and opportunities for, ending our dependence on fossil fuels.

Shelter, warmth, and food, are the basic things that keep us alive, and I’m normally pretty critical of the Scottish Government’s ambition on all three. Today, I spoke in a debate on Scotland’s food and drink policy. You can read the Green/Independent amendment in the debate here.

The recent horsemeat scandal has shocked us; not really because some horse meat has found its way into some products advertised as beef, but because retailers and end-producers seem entirely unable to guarantee the safety of their food because they genuinely didn’t know where it had come from.

This glimpse into the murky corporate-meat industry is deeply unsettling and has led to some overdue attention. Of course the picture is complicated and there are different issues for different parts of the industry – I am not selling a panacea, but it is clear the dominance of a few prevents the maximum number of people in Scotland benefiting.

On the retail side, the sector in the UK is highly concentrated. The Big Four supermarket firms currently control three-quarters of our grocery market. This means they can largely dictate the price paid to producers, even if this puts people out of business.

Procurement in East Ayrshire Council has led the way in Scottish schools but Edinburgh is attempting to catch up. The Soil Association are working with Currie and Buckstone schools, Clovenstone care home, St John’s Hospital in Livingstone (which serves one million meals a year) and Edinburgh University’s Pollock Halls to get them buying local. Pollock Halls achieved the bronze award in January so congratulations to them.

Manufacturers have a huge amount of power over our diets and they should be doing more to cut down the salt, fat and additives content of processed meat products. It’s not fair to just encourage people to buy better quality cuts of meat; it excludes large numbers of people who can’t afford it.

Top of the list on the excellent Fife Diet’s food manifesto is the Soup Test – every child should leave school able to cook a cheap, nutritious bowl of soup.  Who could disagree with that?

Our food policy should have the provision of nourishing food people in Scotland at its heart, not just an export strategy. We need to have confidence in our food again.

I’ve written a piece for today’s Daily Record about the need for a meaningful legacy from next year’s Commonwealth Games. You can read my thoughts in more detail below…

Glasgow 2014. What an opportunity! What a chance to make sport part of everyday life for many more Scots. Not only as spectators, but as participants too.

It gives us a chance to tackle our unwanted label as the third fattest nation on earth. I’ve long campaigned to save green spaces in built-up areas – it’s what got me into politics – and for safer walking and cycling routes to school and work so we get a wee bit of exercise without even thinking.

The current buzzword – legacy – must include suitable venues, facilities and appropriately qualified coaches. We can’t have enthusiastic young people left on long waiting lists where their enthusiasm will wane. Local and national government must walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

Many of those involved in coaching, whatever the sport, were either competitors themselves or came to it via their children. I’m no longer a competitive athlete, but I’m still passionate about the need for young people to have the opportunities I had.

In Edinburgh in 1980, at the age of 14, inspired by my neighbour’s poster of Scottish sprint star Linsey McDonald I headed to the track to see what athletics was about. Just two years older than me she was set to represent Britain in the 1980 Olympics in the 4 x 400 metres. I had no idea that within a year or two I’d find myself competing against my heroine in a muddy cross-country at Hawick.

At the track I found a strong club culture, and much support, motivation and advice from the volunteer coaches who could be found trackside in all weathers, week in, week out. The same is true today.

While my first competitive club outing was in the high jump, my first national representative honours were in cross-country so it’s fair to say that I benefitted from a broad coaching base. Investing in this broad base is vital.

We only have to look at the achievements of our own Eilidh Child. Now an Olympian, she scooped medals in under-13 national level cross country and has gone on to record world class times in the 400m hurdles and on the flat, deservedly winning gold and silver at the recent European Indoor Championship.

If we pigeonhole young people at too early an age we may never discover the event that best fits them.

Worringly, research carried out by Sportscotland suggests that girls see sport as a ‘boys’ thing, while a study by Dundee University shows body-conscious 11 to 14-year-old girls mistakenly believe they do not need to exercise if they eat less. This isn’t helped by the scarcity of coverage of sportswomen in print and broadcast media. The recent stushie in the Record thanks to one pundit’s inept comments really hammered this home. And just look at the lack of gender balance on panel shows like ‘A Question of Sport’.

School visits from inspirational athletes like Olympian Katherine Grainger and World Champion bobsledder Gillian Cooke help highlight the opportunities to travel and to make lifelong friends through sport.  Jessica Ennis highlights the incredibly positive body image that is boosted by a physically active lifestyle.

One bad experience at school can put someone off sport for life. The excellent report ‘Out for Sport’ shows LGBT Scots still encounter barriers. Some say because they weren’t sporty at school they were picked on and they carried these negative associations with them into adulthood.

The fact that the UK is hosting the Olympic and Commonwealth Games back-to-back is mind-blowing. Any legacy must ensure that communities don’t face the loss of their local swimming pool when budgets are tight, and it must ensure that all Scots have to chance to learn to swim.

And it must also ensure that all primary and secondary school children get two hours or two periods of PE each week. If we build on this with projects like the Scottish Athletics School-Club initiative we can start to transform Scotland’s relationship with sport.

The world’s eyes are on us and our children and grandchildren’s quality of life is at stake. We must aim higher.

Alison

Next week, on March 14^th, the City of Edinburgh Council will decide whether or not Castlebrae High School should close from the end of 2012/13 school year.

Castlebrae High School has a unique identity and a way of working that Greens believe should be supported and developed as it provides a strong vocational grounding that is so important to many of the young people in this part of the city.

This morning I met with local campaigners as they took their message to the City Chambers.

No one in or passing the City Chambers this morning can be in any doubt about the commitment of pupils and parents to Castlebrae High School. They believe that, at a time of regeneration for Craigmillar, closure of the secondary school sends out the wrong message.  I agree with them.

If the Council closes Castlebrae there will be no local high school for some seven years. This will impact on its viability as an attractive place to bring up a family.

General Register Office statistics clearly demonstrate that the school roll in Edinburgh is set to increase notably in the decade ahead.  The Council is now witnessing serious overcrowding in some schools due to decisions taken to deliver short term savings.  While they plan Craigmillar’s new secondary school for 2020 they should continue to enhance and invest in Castlebrae’s notable vocational model and its’ important role at the heart of the community.

I’m concerned at the proposal that Castlebrae pupils apply to Portobello and other schools.  I’d like the Council to guarantee that the alternatives proposed can offer a place to each and every pupil requiring one. Current projections suggest this may be problematic.

Alison is cheering two local pubs for winning major industry awards.

Staggs Bar in Musselburgh has been named Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) Lothians Pub of the Year 2013 and the Cask and Barrel (Southside) is CAMRA City of Edinburgh Pub of the Year.

Alison has lodged a motion in parliament congratulating the winners.

Alison said:

“By providing drinks in a managed environment, well-run community pubs are part of the answer to Scotland’s difficult relationship with alcohol. These awards help highlight the hard work of small businesses managing to offer something different.

“We should be doing more to support pubs that bring a variety of people together in a welcoming atmosphere, and that support Scottish breweries and producers.”