Even before proper Old Testament weather battered Scotland the other weekend, before railway lines were turned into canals and Greenock became an island, we knew that we needed to act if we’re going to avert serious environmental disaster.
The polls show that we accept climate change is happening, cite the environment as one of our top concerns, and don’t think the government is doing enough to combat carbon emissions.
Latest Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) figures show that about a third of Scottish small firms have already taken action to reduce carbon emissions or waste – for example cutting down on single use products, increasing recycling, or better waste management.
READ MORE: Why we have to fight the Glasgow LEZ
So, if there’s broad public and business support for action on climate change, why does it seem that just about every pro-environment scheme of late has driven a wedge between government and the governed?
As is so often the way, I suspect it’s down to the details and the implementation.
Take Glasgow’s Low Emission Zone (LEZ). The city centre had long been home to some dangerously polluted streets. Who wants to shop, eat, drink or sit in an office on one of them? Sorting that out would be great for business.
But what some regard as the rushed introduction of the scheme – at a time when other business overheads are already through the roof and turnover is shaky – is, from the conversations we’re having, putting extra strain on footfall, employees and suppliers. And that’s even with the mitigations – such as scrappage schemes – we managed to secure.
Furthermore, reports earlier in the year that air pollution levels in Glasgow had been low before the zone came into effect, coupled with last month’s figures showing that nitrogen dioxide levels at the traditional pollution hot-spot around Glasgow Central Station have actually gone up since the zone went live, don’t seem to bolster the causal link between the LEZ and better air quality. Perhaps the shift to electric buses, which had obviously already happened, had more to do with it.
It’s a similar story with the ULEZ scheme in London. Colleagues in the capital tell me that, as in Glasgow, small businesses don’t disagree with the scheme’s objectives, but are frustrated with the implementation. When you consider that the expansion of the original scheme – itself conceived before the cost of doing business crisis took hold – was ushered in with only a year and a half’s notice, you can see their point. Even with the grace periods and extra scrappage scheme our London colleagues secured, when money’s so tight and new vehicles so expensive, the knock-on effects are being felt.
Along the M4 in Wales, the new default 20mph speed limit has caused controversy. Rooted in the undeniably laudable desire to improve road safety, the move also aims to get people out of their cars and into lower-emission active travel options, the infrastructure for which simply doesn’t exist in many areas.
READ MORE: Lorna Slater damned for 'incompetence' over £86m wreckage left by DRS
Closer to home, it was insufficient attention to practicalities and long-standing concerns about the cost, space and time impacts that sent the Deposit Return Scheme to its early grave.
So, this isn’t a Glasgow thing, or even a Scotland thing. It seems that, across the board, there’s a job to be done around turning the policy aim into practical action in a way that doesn’t alienate those you need to bring with you.
Easier said than done, of course. But part of the answer is a wearily familiar one – thinking about what your proposal will actually look like to the people and businesses who’ll need to comply with or implement it. That requires a deeper understanding of their daily lives and pressures. We’re already trying to bring about a step-change in how business regulations are designed and introduced, and there are few better places to start than with net zero initiatives.
But there’s more to it than that.
I wonder if what’s missing is the positive, practical case. Not just dire warnings of the seriousness of the situation, but pointing to real opportunities the move to net zero offers.
There’s a lot of pioneering work already being done by small businesses in this space. FSB’s Sustainability Award winner 2023, MiAlgae, for example, recycles co-products from distilleries to grow an Omega-3 rich algal ingredient for aquaculture and pet feeds, without the need for wild-caught fish.
In Thurso, Dunnet Bay Distillers have produced the first gin available in fully recyclable pouches that can be returned to the distillery, freepost via Royal Mail. Over in Edinburgh, IntelliDigest have developed a processor that takes food waste and transforms it into a nutrient that can be used for sustainable food production.
READ MORE: Only one in four in Glasgow back LEZ as hotspot pollution rises
We need, though, to go further.
The business of net zero can’t be seen as a minority interest – it needs mass participation from firms right across the board. Thus it might be an idea if governments started, to put it bluntly, actually doing more of the things they’ve promised, so they can begin to point to the concrete business opportunities that net zero brings.
For example, last week we joined over thirty businesses and organisations in the Scottish housing supply chain in writing an open letter to the First Minister, urging the Scottish Government to deliver on its promise to consult on new minimum energy efficiency standards for homes.
As the letter says, the move to net zero offers huge opportunities for Scottish businesses, but the industry needs certainty and agreed standards before it can invest and get on with the job of retrofitting and better insulating our homes.
If this work is shared out fairly and local businesses get a fair crack of the whip with the contracts, all of a sudden the wider benefits of decarbonisation become more tangible. And if that pattern is then replicated across the other major net zero challenges, you begin to build a more positive picture.
If the smallest businesses or poorest members of society are the most severely impacted by environmental moves, it’s little wonder they’ll be seen as unfair. But the converse is also true: do the detail, start delivering and you’ll take the people with you.
Colin Borland is director of devolved nations for the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel