On the whole I support this, although one should avoid this turning into a tokenistic or "tick box" exercise. If it begins to appear that "there's always a (trivial) climate-related example" then people may become cynical and switch off. Witness how normalised the terms "climate crisis" and "net zero" have become. Everyone talks about them, but rarely in a way that reflects their grave reality.

Absolutely, yes, and this relatest to the prior question. It's critical that we outline positive changes that governments, third sector, business, civic society and individuals can make. Proportionate action is so overdue that one might reasonably lose hope, but we must keep trying, and the mental health implications of losing hope entirely should not be underestimated.

Absolutely yes. Again, there's a very difficult balance to be struck. We must not trivialise or normalise the existential crisis that the majority of species now face, within decades, not centuries. Equally, we need to take great care in how this predicament is shared with children and young people, while also recognising the psychological impact on teachers themselves. It's also important, again, to avoid underplaying and normalising the nature of what we face as many politicians appear to do.

Yes, I do, and this is as part of a required investment programme involving most public buildings - and in parallel with a necessary subsidised retrofit programme for private dwellings. As part of the Scottish Government, our co-leader Patrick Harvie drove forward a "Heat in Buildings Bill" which was recognised as a good step forward in this regard.

There is already a large skills shortage, for example in the area of micro-renewables installation, zero carbon heating, and insulation retrofit. This gap will become much larger if/when action begins to be taken with appropriate urgency. So yes, there should be an expansion of green skills education as a matter of urgency.