Chamber and committees

I will be brief and direct a question to Alan James, who just talked about emissions. In Erik Dalhuijsen’s written submission to the committee, he said that we need

“98% to 100% capture efficiency … to achieve net-zero emissions when dealing with fossil carbon.”

He suggested that capture efficiency was currently running at about 60 per cent. Is he right on one or both of those assertions? In any event, how might we anticipate efficiency improving over time?

I have a very brief question arising from the remarks that we have just heard. Professor Haszeldine, can you confirm that the selection criteria were all known about and set out very clearly in advance, that all the interested parties for the programmes pitched against those criteria and that the scores were allocated against those criteria? I just want to be clear on that.

You mentioned direct air capture. I met Carbon Engineering Ltd last week and it introduced me to that idea. I found that pretty exciting, because it sounded as though, in effect, you take excess carbon emissions from the air and sequester them. Is that right? If so, is it not game changing for what we can achieve in keeping heating as low as possible?

I am very grateful for that answer. I have no further questions at this stage, convener.

I am grateful for that.

Moving on, I will focus on figures again, because that seems to be what we have to work with. We have spoken a lot about hydrogen and your concern about creating fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency has various scenarios in which it anticipates that hydrogen will meet 10 per cent of global energy consumption by 2050. The IEA seems to suggest that 40 per cent of that hydrogen will come from natural gas facilities that are equipped with CCUS—that is, blue hydrogen. If that is right, does it not suggest that the technology must proceed to ensure that we get to the hydrogen economy that I think most of us are looking to get towards?

My question is for Mike Tholen. Mark Ruskell asked about putting carbon under, say, the North Sea, but there was some disagreement between members of the earlier panel about what happens to it once it is there and, indeed, the integrity of anything that you put under the sea. It might come out, or it might not. Can you reassure the committee that, once carbon has been captured and sequestered properly, it is not going to come back out again or have certain negative consequences that we heard about earlier?

Good morning. If the regulations come into force, a business or, indeed, a person who manufactures or supplies certain plastics will commit a criminal offence, resulting in a fine of up to £5,000. The Law Society of Scotland suggests that a criminal law sanction might not be justified or proportionate and might not be the best way to ensure compliance. It suggests that civil sanctions, which have been used in similar legislation, might be better. Do you or your members take a view on the use of a criminal sanction in the regulations?

I thought that you might say that—it was certainly a risk that you might say that. You might give a similar response to my follow-up question. The investigation of potential offences and the enforcement of the criminal sanction will be done by local authorities. Is there any way of knowing whether local authorities feel sufficiently resourced and, indeed, able to carry out full investigation and enforcement?

With respect, I am not sure that that answers my question on the value and the numbers, but I will move on to a related question. What will be the impact on the Scottish supply chain in terms of both numbers and value?