:00:08. > :00:11.misjudgment. Thank you. Tonight on Newsnight Scotland. The widely
:00:11. > :00:16.expected decision to scrap the Longannet carbon capture project is
:00:16. > :00:19.confirmed. Where does this leave lofty claims of world leading
:00:19. > :00:24.technologies and big ambitions to stop pumping so much carbon into
:00:24. > :00:27.the atmosphere? And have we fallen out of love with
:00:27. > :00:34.organic? A special report into an industry struggling as households
:00:34. > :00:36.deal with rising living costs. Good evening. The �1 billion
:00:36. > :00:40.available to develop carbon capture technology is still there insists
:00:40. > :00:42.the United Kingdom government. But there is little doubt that the
:00:42. > :00:47.decision to scrap the flagship project at Longannet Power Station
:00:47. > :00:50.is a serious and significant blow to delivering on that technology.
:00:50. > :00:53.Much of what is planned for future energy generation that isn't either
:00:53. > :00:59.nuclear or renewable power is largely predicated on making the
:00:59. > :01:09.technology work. And as things stand, that seems as far away now
:01:09. > :01:14.
:01:14. > :01:18.as ever. Laura Bicker spent the day This power station used to be
:01:19. > :01:23.Scotland's biggest polluter. For the last three years, it has been a
:01:23. > :01:28.front-runner in the race for green energy, until today. A deal between
:01:28. > :01:32.the Government and Scottish Power broke down. It led to this question
:01:32. > :01:38.to the Prime Minister. Given the importance of carbon capture and
:01:38. > :01:41.storage, as well as helping to reduce carbon emissions and as an
:01:41. > :01:47.exportable technology to rebalance the economy, will the Prime
:01:47. > :01:53.Minister put his words into action and step into insurer that the
:01:53. > :01:55.Longannet demonstration project goes ahead? The funding we sat is
:01:55. > :02:00.out for carbon capture and storage is still there and will be made
:02:00. > :02:04.available. Clearly, the scheme is not running the way they intended,
:02:04. > :02:10.but the Government money, the support to this vital technology is
:02:10. > :02:16.there. This is the Veerie on carbon capture. Cole is central power
:02:16. > :02:19.station where it is burnt to create energy. The staging captures the
:02:19. > :02:25.carbon-dioxide uncensored to an offshore pipeline where it is
:02:25. > :02:30.pumped below the sea into a gas or oil field. Some rockets added to
:02:30. > :02:34.stop the carbon-dioxide heading back into the atmosphere. I have
:02:34. > :02:38.great pleasure in switching on the mobile test unit. The technology
:02:38. > :02:44.was tested on a small scale at Longannet but they hoped for bigger
:02:44. > :02:49.things. But the stumbling block was money. It came down to the fact
:02:49. > :02:53.that there were specifics about the Longannet plant, its location, how
:02:53. > :03:00.far away it is from the reserve fors where we were storing the
:03:00. > :03:05.carbon, and it made it difficult to added up. The Government set to say
:03:05. > :03:10.to �1 billion, but Scottish Power needed more. -- set aside. They
:03:10. > :03:14.needed about half a billion, but the Treasury was not convinced.
:03:14. > :03:19.were very disappointed. We are immensely proud in bringing the
:03:19. > :03:23.first of a kind projects to be detail that we have, but we are
:03:23. > :03:29.very disappointed that the project cannot go ahead here. Scottish
:03:29. > :03:33.Power spent �10 million and had 350 staff working on carbon capture
:03:33. > :03:37.storage year at Longannet. That information has now been shared
:03:38. > :03:42.with energy companies across the UK. But we understand that Scotland may
:03:42. > :03:48.still lead the way in this technology, and the name in the
:03:48. > :03:53.frame is that Peter head. That has not stopped a blame game, a chance
:03:53. > :03:55.to point the finger and ask what went wrong? I have written to Chris
:03:55. > :04:01.Huhne and I am sure the Scottish government would do the same. We
:04:01. > :04:04.have to fight for this one, it is not something we can let go easily.
:04:04. > :04:09.It is the huge economic opportunity for us, and just because it isn't
:04:09. > :04:13.on the London radar, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in Scotland.
:04:13. > :04:17.There is an international race under way to deliver this project,
:04:18. > :04:22.and the commercial benefits for the country becomes first could be huge.
:04:22. > :04:27.The loser could be left to beg, borrow and by the technology. With
:04:27. > :04:34.the loss of the Longannet contract, the UK has dropped the green baton.
:04:34. > :04:37.Who will now pick it up? The Scottish government minister
:04:37. > :04:43.for finance and sustainable development John Swinney joined the
:04:43. > :04:46.earlier and I asked him about his reaction for this decision? It is
:04:46. > :04:49.one of profound disappointment on this decision that the UK
:04:50. > :04:55.government has taken. There has been a tremendous amount of effort
:04:55. > :04:59.and intellect and research invested in developing this proposal in
:04:59. > :05:03.Longannet was far as it has come. Forehead to come this far and for
:05:03. > :05:06.it not to be taken to the next stage of development and to put us
:05:06. > :05:09.in a position where we could properly realise the advantages and
:05:10. > :05:13.the strength of what is literally a world-leading technological
:05:13. > :05:21.opportunity for Scotland, this is a profound disappointment for the
:05:21. > :05:24.Scottish government. What is the problem, is it simply that the �1.3
:05:24. > :05:28.billion estimate that Scottish Power has, that the Government will
:05:28. > :05:34.not pay that much, is that simple? It probably is that simple, but
:05:34. > :05:37.essentially, as Scottish Power and its consortium colleagues went
:05:37. > :05:41.through the process of developing this proposal that has been done
:05:41. > :05:46.very much in consult with the Department of Energy and climate
:05:46. > :05:49.change, they have essentially come to the conclusion that the cost
:05:49. > :05:54.will be higher than the �1 billion that the Government has been
:05:54. > :05:59.prepared to allocate. What is disappointing about that is the
:05:59. > :06:04.fact that the work that has gone in involving the consortium has been
:06:04. > :06:08.very beneficial work. It has given us some real advantages in taking
:06:08. > :06:13.forward this technology. Bearing in mind the scale of the contribution
:06:13. > :06:16.for example of the North Sea oil revenues to the UK Treasury, it is
:06:16. > :06:20.a shame that the UK government has not used a small proportion of this
:06:20. > :06:26.to take the project to the next stage. The official explanation
:06:26. > :06:30.about the pipelines, you do not take that seriously? I do not think
:06:30. > :06:35.that is a compelling argument, because if that was the case, that
:06:35. > :06:41.would undermine some of the reasons that we have had advanced for the
:06:41. > :06:46.arguments against Peter Head to be used. I do not think that is as
:06:46. > :06:50.substantial argument. Essentially it is about the cost, and the cost
:06:50. > :06:53.factor is are being influenced by the electricity markets and the
:06:53. > :06:57.reform the UK government is presiding over which is creating
:06:57. > :07:02.substantial uncertainty about the future financial support that would
:07:02. > :07:08.be available for carbon capture technology. As a consequence, that
:07:08. > :07:13.makes Investment from Scottish Power more difficult to take in
:07:13. > :07:18.context. Is there anything you want to do or can do as a government,
:07:18. > :07:21.apart from expressing general support for this project?
:07:21. > :07:26.Presumably, you do not have the kind of money to step in and
:07:26. > :07:30.replace the British government even if you had the power to do that.
:07:30. > :07:37.Over the years, the power. Is a material., and that is why the
:07:37. > :07:41.leadership in this issue has rested with this government. -- the power
:07:41. > :07:47.point is a material point, and that is why the leadership in this issue
:07:47. > :07:52.has rested with the Government. There is nothing more you can to?
:07:52. > :07:56.We stand ready to do whatever we can do to assist in taking the
:07:56. > :08:03.project for it. Obviously, Chris Huhne has opened up the prospect of
:08:03. > :08:11.a further opportunity at Peter Head, which is welcome, but he Joerg Head
:08:11. > :08:16.was that he let down by the Labour government. -- Peter Head. We need
:08:16. > :08:20.to look at this opportunity now. We need to take some practical steps
:08:20. > :08:25.in the research field and in Royal Scottish Enterprise and in the
:08:25. > :08:30.Scottish Green Energy Centre to try and marshal the argument to get
:08:30. > :08:33.some of the support for research into carbon capture and storage
:08:33. > :08:37.technology to be taken forward. We had been very practical in this
:08:37. > :08:42.work and will do that again. Presumably, given the development
:08:42. > :08:47.of this technology is on hold, he will now blocked the planning
:08:47. > :08:57.application to build at call far power-station, because that was
:08:57. > :08:59.predicated on using this technology. -- ate cold fire power stations.
:08:59. > :09:03.There is a planning application ahead, and it would be
:09:03. > :09:08.inappropriate for me to make any comment on this, and I am not
:09:08. > :09:11.saying this to avoid the question, I simply have to have due regard to
:09:11. > :09:17.my responsibilities in the Scottish government not to make specific
:09:17. > :09:21.comment about that proposal. Thank you. We have to leave it there.
:09:21. > :09:24.Following today's announcement by the energy secretary, we invited
:09:24. > :09:29.them or any other department minister to appear tonight, but
:09:29. > :09:35.they were not available. We asked for any representative of the UK
:09:35. > :09:38.government, but again, nobody was available. We have a professor of
:09:38. > :09:44.carbon capture and storage from the University of Edinburgh with us now.
:09:44. > :09:48.Wide you think this project has collapsed? Is it simply the money?
:09:48. > :09:53.It is simply down to the money, and I am glad to be available to try
:09:53. > :09:57.and explain this, because we know from the documentation that is now
:09:57. > :10:06.available, but technically, this project stacks up and the storage
:10:06. > :10:10.site works and the capture plant would work. And the issue about the
:10:10. > :10:15.pipeline being too long is rubbish, it is an advantage, it is a
:10:15. > :10:20.positive to use an existing pipeline. The problem is, this has
:10:20. > :10:24.been very slow and complicated. It has gone through three prime
:10:24. > :10:27.ministers, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now David Cameron, all of whom
:10:27. > :10:33.claim to be enthusiastic about carbon capture and storage, none of
:10:33. > :10:36.whom has been able to deliver it. It has been very complicated and
:10:37. > :10:42.subject to lots of time and unfair Treasury rules and the Government
:10:42. > :10:48.has consistently refused to take on board much of the brisk and the
:10:48. > :10:52.problems on how much liability people will take is the key issue.
:10:52. > :10:55.It is not just the amount of government subsidy, or where is the
:10:55. > :10:59.risk if the Government is effectively going to pay for it?
:10:59. > :11:03.There is a lot of talk about how much it would cost in the last few
:11:03. > :11:10.days. We know how much it would cost now because we can read the
:11:10. > :11:16.documentation. The figures in there are pretty clear. The project would
:11:16. > :11:21.cost �1,050 million, so about a big sum of money on the table. The
:11:21. > :11:26.Treasury adds another �300 million, because it says you might go over
:11:26. > :11:31.budget. And it adds another 15 % on top of that, because it says we do
:11:31. > :11:35.not believe you have cut your costs accurate, so if I can illustrate
:11:35. > :11:40.that domestically, I want to make my has more energy efficient, so
:11:40. > :11:44.why have cut �1,000, I will put that on the table. -- I want to
:11:44. > :11:48.make my house. The Government says we want another �500 in case it
:11:48. > :11:53.goes wrong. We do not think she will spend at �500, but that is
:11:53. > :12:00.what we will call it. I thought you were going to produce a top hat and
:12:00. > :12:05.a Brad! It is not actually 1 billion that is on offer, it has to
:12:05. > :12:10.comment at �600 million. Unless the Government stops this risk-sharing
:12:10. > :12:16.approach, it will never deliver anything. What about the prospect
:12:16. > :12:22.for Peter Head. John Swinney referred to that. The of the his
:12:22. > :12:27.point on this is, it is a gas plant. Two were three things about Peter
:12:27. > :12:33.Head, there have been �40 million spent on the work for Longannet on
:12:33. > :12:37.the pipeline and the storage site. Peter Head which shares some of the
:12:37. > :12:42.pipeline and share some of the exact storage site, so it makes it
:12:42. > :12:48.cheaper and more readily available. Peter Kate is a shorter Connection
:12:49. > :12:52.distance and can capture simply because it is cleaner gas going up
:12:52. > :12:57.the chimney. The significance of gas for the future is that right
:12:57. > :13:02.now, week after week, about half of the electricity in the UK has
:13:02. > :13:07.generated from burning gas, so if we look to the future, we have to
:13:07. > :13:12.realise that gas is cleaner than coal, but is still a dirty fuel.
:13:12. > :13:15.Having a gas project on offer at the moment in Europe... If you
:13:16. > :13:25.develop carbon capture that works, have you by doing that, developed
:13:26. > :13:29.
:13:29. > :13:34.technology that would work in a The UK will move away from coal.
:13:34. > :13:43.That call be taxed by carbon dioxide emissions. In means that
:13:43. > :13:50.all coal-fired plants become uneconomic. They will close by 2022.
:13:51. > :14:00.That will leave a giant hole in the UK electricity production. You can
:14:00. > :14:06.answer this question. You're not a minister. Does it make any sense
:14:06. > :14:13.for this plan to go ahead? It is a live planning application. It makes
:14:13. > :14:23.it very difficult to understand how the economics or work. -- the
:14:23. > :14:23.
:14:24. > :14:32.economics will work, if the Longannet plan does not work. They
:14:32. > :14:40.rose tax on a three-quarters of the plant, as well as the CCS. A if we
:14:40. > :14:45.do not have the CCS, we will not have that. That will have to be
:14:45. > :14:52.funded somehow. We have to gamble that the other three-quarters will
:14:52. > :15:02.get cleaned up some time in the future. Briefly, is this big enough
:15:02. > :15:10.to put at risk the UK and Scottish governments reduction targets?
:15:11. > :15:14.short answer is yes. The Treasury it is fixated on a short-term fix.
:15:15. > :15:21.If they do not want to burn down forests, that's why they are paying
:15:21. > :15:28.over the odds for wind power. Carbon capture can deliver the same
:15:28. > :15:35.benefits at the same cost. We need to get to the 2030 reduction
:15:35. > :15:40.targets. Thank you very much indeed. Organic food was flavour of the
:15:40. > :15:46.month during the boom years when we had plenty of disposable income.
:15:46. > :15:56.Since the recession the market has shrunk by 30%. Farmers have felt
:15:56. > :15:56.
:15:56. > :16:06.the pinch by dropping their organic status. Take up organic -- take up
:16:06. > :16:07.
:16:07. > :16:16.for organic grants is in trouble. They are poor 8.8 million carats
:16:16. > :16:20.from this field every year. -- Paul. From planting to packing, they go
:16:20. > :16:24.through a rigorous process to insure their organics -- their
:16:24. > :16:28.organic status. My mother told me carrots are good for your eyes,
:16:28. > :16:37.they have not done much for me, I'm very interested in them in this
:16:37. > :16:41.cake. All this organic bakery in Glasgow, it is a battle to stay
:16:41. > :16:48.organic. It is not to be red tape, it is getting their hands on the
:16:48. > :16:56.ingredients. Organic butter is a real problem. Getting Scottish
:16:56. > :17:03.butter. The availability is erratic. We have had to substituted with
:17:03. > :17:13.Welsh butter we are losing 10% of the organic produce in Scotland
:17:13. > :17:14.
:17:14. > :17:21.every year. Karen -- currently only 4% of the land here is organic.
:17:21. > :17:30.When we started, they wanted 20% of the total land been organic. We are
:17:30. > :17:40.way way off that. My worries, you get below a certain critical mass
:17:40. > :17:42.
:17:42. > :17:50.organic products. For the Scottish government, spurred -- supporting
:17:51. > :18:00.organic produce is was high on their agenda. Only after the Budget
:18:01. > :18:04.
:18:04. > :18:09.was available was organic produce awarded budgets also awarded.
:18:09. > :18:19.are entering a worrying time for organic produce. The government
:18:19. > :18:19.
:18:19. > :18:26.needs is that up -- need to step up, and support the organic land. They
:18:26. > :18:30.need to invest in my organic production. It would be a shame to
:18:30. > :18:36.see previous investments squandered by me coming out. Some organic
:18:36. > :18:44.farmers are having to rethink their business models. Prior to 2008, the
:18:44. > :18:51.whole business was organic. When the recession hit, the demand fell,
:18:51. > :18:58.we lost one of our contracts. We move the pigs over to conventional
:18:58. > :19:07.production. There is environmentally friendly Common
:19:07. > :19:10.Agricultural -- Common Agricultural Policy. Climate change are the key
:19:10. > :19:15.things they are looking at, they think that organic farming will
:19:16. > :19:20.deliver that. There are good messages coming out of the European
:19:20. > :19:26.Union despite government support, there is still a perception that
:19:26. > :19:34.organic produce is too expensive. That comes at a time when food
:19:34. > :19:39.bills are on the rise. They have dropped by 90%. There is a strong
:19:39. > :19:46.perception that it is too expensive. That is not the case. There has
:19:46. > :19:55.been so much food inflation in the non-organic sector, it is sometimes
:19:55. > :20:01.cheaper. As a society, we are spending more money on supermarkets
:20:01. > :20:09.than local producers. You get what you pay for. We need a healthy
:20:09. > :20:13.society. Local suppliers, local producers. Is the organic produce a
:20:14. > :20:18.luxury that people cannot afford? Producers say it is not just about
:20:18. > :20:24.a growing food, is about protecting the environment. To do this they
:20:24. > :20:31.needs with the support from the Scottish government. -- with the
:20:31. > :20:41.support. A look at the back pages, North to
:20:41. > :20:41.
:20:41. > :20:46.South divide. Lifespan gaps are widening. Still better than England.
:20:46. > :20:55.widening. Still better than England. The Scottish Daily Mail, a crisis