Why has the target changed? 

Ferries, tugs and harbour craft account for nearly half of our emissions, and with no commercially viable zero emissions options currently available, it isn’t possible to significantly reduce these emissions before 2030. 

In this area, the technologies needed to achieve net zero are still in their infancy, such as the ongoing Zevi trials, so they can’t be applied to our current situation. 

With recent procurement of new tugs and ongoing procurement of replacing the ferry fleet, the study identifies that some emissions will potentially or effectively be ‘locked in’ as assets have a 25–30-year life span (although it is expected that new vessels will be future proofed to incorporate lower carbon solutions over time). 

Why 2045 been recommended as our new goal? 

The Committee report recommended that we align with Scotland's national target by adjusting our net zero target to 2045. The Scottish Government removed their 2030 target in 2024 following advice from the UK Climate Change Committee.  

To help ensure progress, however, the study also recommended that the Council develop specific decarbonisation targets for emission sources rather than a single end date target for the Council as a whole.  This approach was endorsed by the Committee.   

We realise that 2045 will still be challenging, but that it can be achievable if the Council positions itself to respond in due course to emerging technologies as these become increasingly available. Funding will also be a key consideration, but it presents an opportunity, as significant external support is expected to be available to assist organisations transitioning to net zero technologies. 

So rather than having an unrealistic target that we’ll most likely miss, we’re being realistic  and as ambitious as possible, recognising that the journey to net zero will be achieved with the support of many contributing partners, from national government and innovation funding, through to leading companies and organisations, including Orkney based pioneers that have been so active and successful in energy innovations   

What are the different options presented to the Council? 

The Council has previously explored a wide range of measures, set out in documents such as its Carbon Management Plan. Those were reviewed and supplemented with additional suggestions from independent experts within Aether. The impacts of measures were modelled to evaluate three potential decarbonisation pathways for the Council, representing different levels of ambition on climate change 

Scenario 1 - Minimum Ambition (52% reduction by 2045): Buildings and land vehicles fully decarbonised by 2045, but no major technology change for ferries, tugs, or aircraft.  

Scenario 2 - Medium Ambition (57-65% reduction by 2045): Buildings and vehicles decarbonised by 2040 (five years earlier), and some ferries and tugs get hybrid or electric systems. 

Scenario 3 - High Ambition (99% reduction by 2045): Buildings and vehicles fully decarbonised by 2035 with all ferries, tugs and aircraft fully decarbonised by 2045, and small remaining emissions offset by nature-based solutions.  

The report recommended that we commit to the high ambition scenario, which was agreed by the P&R Committee. The committee also endorsed the approach proposed to develop specific decarbonisation targets, rather than a single end date scenario target for the Council as a whole.  The scenarios are indicative, and the exact balance of measures could vary. 

What about offsetting through nature-based carbon solutions – such as peatland restoration? 

Significant work is underway nationally on nature-based carbon solutions and ‘carbon insetting’, for example, from peatland restoration and appropriate tree planting.   

Draft guidance from the Scottish Government indicates that these developments can count as carbon sequestration/carbon removal contributions that could balance against residual carbon emissions (should the Council not be able to fully decarbonise by 2045). This Government guidance also indicates that in the future, the wider public estate in Scotland could potentially also be used for projects (if, for example, the potential in Orkney is not sufficient on its own).   

These projects can offer important carbon contributions as well as potential wider benefits, such as for biodiversity or flood risk mitigation.   Projects in Orkney could not fully offset OIC’s emissions on their own, but they have a role to play to compensate for any residual emissions (following decarbonisation), and this is reviewed in the study.   

Orkney has limited woodland, and conditions can make large-scale woodland creation challenging.   However, contributions can be made by the appropriate planting of small woods, shelter belts and shrub/hedge species.    Peatland restoration is possible at a larger scale, and some projects are already underway in Orkney by other organisations.   

Given the timescales involved in such nature-based solutions, the study identifies that these types of projects need to be explored sooner rather than later. National level funding sources already exist for many nature-based schemes, and this is identified as an important opportunity for the Council’s transition and targets.   

How much will all this cost? 

For Orkney Islands Council, the study provides estimated costs for the mitigation actions, and these will help the Council in its future planning, funding bids and potentially in lobbying work with national government.  However, there are no new funding commitments established at this time. 

For some sources of emissions, the additional (net) cost of decarbonisation cannot be confirmed, and therefore only the full replacement costs are stated (e.g. ferries / marine services estimated at £308-447 million).  This, of course, is not the cost of net zero itself, but is instead the cost of replacements that are low or zero carbon. In other areas, such as in buildings, the net costs are clearer, and there are many opportunities for decarbonisation.  Further work will, of course, be undertaken, and the Council will always pursue best value in its capital programme.  

It is important to put these costs in context, and many measures will reduce operational costs now and in future (e.g. through electrification).  Overall lifetime costs can therefore be lower when one accounts for these savings over time. 

Also, taking into account the existing cycle of replacement and upgrades, a large proportion of costs would most likely be incurred with or without net zero. 

There are also external funding sources available, including Scottish Government grants and climate funds. In fact, the Council secured over £1m funding for Net Zero related projects in the current financial year. 

Of course, taking no action will itself be costly, in terms of climate damage and the future adaptation needs. The UK independent advisor, Climate Change Committee (CCC) estimates that failing to reach Net Zero will cost significantly more than the transition itself, with inaction causing severe, long-term economic damage and higher, sustained energy costs. While the UK’s net cost of achieving Net Zero is projected at roughly 0.2–1.3% of UK GDP annually, inaction poses risks including fossil fuel price shocks and substantial climate damage. 

Is the Council giving up on climate action? 

Absolutely not. The recommendation to revise the 2030 target is about being transparent and realistic, based on the comprehensive evidence base that we now have through this study. It is not reducing our ambition. In fact, the study recommends the Council should target the highest ambition scenario possible and front-load emissions reductions where technologies exist now, such as heating for buildings and electric vehicles. This high ambition was agreed by the Committee. 

The climate emergency remains a Council strategic priority established through the declaration in 2019 and the Council Plan 2023-28. This study provides the evidence to pursue to plan a pathway to achieve net zero.