Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSPs reject tough climate targets in committee vote

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 May 2009
By Jenny Haworth
ATTEMPTS to toughen carbon emissions targets were rejected by MSPs yesterday.
Liberal Democrat MSP Alison McInnes called for Scotland's climate change laws to include a target of 3 per cent annual emissions reductions.

This was rejected by members of Holyrood's Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

As the climate bill stands, the draft laws will only bring in annual 3 per cent reduction targets from 2020.

Campaign group Stop Climate Chaos Scotland said the lack of early action in the current draft legislation "put at risk" hopes that it would be "world leading".

MSPs also voted against an amendment by Green MSP Robin Harper to increase the 2050 target for emissions reductions from 80 to 90 per cent.





The full article contains 126 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 May 2009 9:24 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Bevin Boyce,

27/05/2009 00:24:05
2050 target.

That's measurable and accountable then!
2

Jock Sport ,

27/05/2009 01:15:30
If we get independence, we might survive.
3

Alan B,

27/05/2009 02:30:36
#Cynicus

Every individual could say that about their own contribution.

The point is more the rich west ie the industrialised countries need to take the lead, through technological innovation to deal with climate change.

Most countries in the eu could say the individually do not make that big a contribution to world emmissions but the eu as a whole with over 400million people will.

i do not see the solution coming for the sp. But the EU and US should create a path so that we can migrate away from the petrol powered car.

Then india, china and the rest of the developing world can adopt that technology too.

Makes sense to move away from oil dependency on the middle east anyway.

Beyond transport we need to look at electricity production. Again the world needs the west to take a technological lead developing renewables etc (tidal, wave as well as better wind etc). Add carbon capture. And then energy reduction with the mandatory use of low energy consumer products from lighting to moving away from stand by tvs etc.

It should not be about rationing but a strategic move to develop technlogical solutions to environment issues so that we can maintain living standards and not wreck the planet.
4

John Cameron,

St Andrews 27/05/2009 07:42:52
It is about time the Scottish Parliament reigned in some of the nuttier elements in the Monster Raving Green Loony Party. From a strictly scientific point of view (as opposed to that of the environmental fundamentalists) the situation has not changed:

1.Is there an established Theory of Climate? No.
2. Do we understand fully how climate works? No.
3. Is carbon dioxide demonstrated to be a dangerous atmospheric pollutant? No.
4. Can deterministic computer models predict future climate? No.
5. Is there a consensus amongst qualified scientists that dangerous, human-caused climate change is upon us? No.
6. Did late 20th century temperature rise at a dangerous rate, or to a dangerous level? No.
7. Is global temperature currently rising? No.
5

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 27/05/2009 07:52:12
Spot on #5
Nothing wrong with cleaning up our act with things like waste disposal, recycling etc though.
6

Unimpressed one,

27/05/2009 07:56:48
#4, See you're still swallowing the 'climate chaos' scam. This religious quackery masquerading s scientific fact needs to be scrapped by our politicians along with the expenses fiddling, before sane people will vote for any of their ideas.
7

The Wanderer from the South,

27/05/2009 08:58:35
A cut in levels? Start my putting a muzzle on MSP's
8

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/05/2009 09:03:29
Alan B #4 suggests the important point that a mandatory change to a low energy economy would promote the development of new technologies. Those changes are going to have to come and the countries that embrace them the sooner will be those that stand to profit the more from their development.

The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has just shown itself unequal to the task before them. Where is the logic in accepting that 3 per cent reduction targets are required from from 2020 but not at present? That decision has about as much sense as a smoker who accepts that he has to stop but says he won't quit for a few more years. This is particularly the case since the first reductions are the easiest. In effect the committee has kicked the problem into the long grass and left it for others to deal seriously with. It will be their children upon whom this betrayal will fall most heavily.
9

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/05/2009 09:14:29
#5 John Cameron

Endlessly repeating the same post (your questions 1-7) of specious questions designed to provide glib assertions in lieu of answers hardly contributes to informative debate.
10

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 27/05/2009 09:15:41
MSP emissions on this subject could usefully be culled starting with those paragons of scientific virtue the Greens.

MP's on the take, economy down the pan and likely to be hammered for years. Brown has managed to help you hit your "targets" by reducing economic activity for years and years. However I think most sane people and certainly those whose feet stand on this planet would be glad just to focus on a) having a job b) somewhere to stay and c) a means of transport.

And please try to get over it on CO2 - I make this prediction that NOTHING BAD WILL HAPPEN even if CO2 levels are maintained. The climate will oscillate gently as usual and might even get a little bit cooler and "unusual" weather events (which are quite normal) will continue as if nothing happened.

Meanwhile morons in Holyrood and at Westminster will try to use this excuse to wreck what's left of the economy and tax the living daylights out of us because "it's for your own good".
11

Andy Ritchie's left boot,

27/05/2009 09:24:33
"Man Made Climate Change" is the new Millenium bug. Those politicains who have jumped on this particular bandwagon (and that seems to be most of them!) have no scientific or engineering knowledge - are they really qualified to make a judgement? Climate change is a NATURAL occurrence and it has occurred many ties in the past. The effect of human activity is minimal, and given that China's CO2 output dwarfs Scotland's, it appears that what they are trying to do is empty the Clyde with a teaspoon.
12

seanie,

27/05/2009 09:26:27
The American Physical Society;

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
13

seanie,

27/05/2009 09:26:36
The Royal Society;

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable."
14

seanie,

27/05/2009 09:26:45
A Joint Science Academies’ statement;

http://www.icsu-africa.org/Resource_centre/Globalresponseclimatechange.pdf

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
15

seanie,

27/05/2009 09:27:07
The American Association for the Advancement of Science;

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
16

seanie,

27/05/2009 09:27:26
A statement from The Royal Meteorological Society;

http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332

"The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is unequivocal in its conclusion that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly to these changes. The evidence, from not just one source but a number of different measurements, is now far greater and the tools we have to model climate change contain much more of our scientific knowledge within them. The world’s best climate scientists are telling us its time to do something about it."
17

seanie,

27/05/2009 09:31:44
The Geological Society;

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page1022.html

"We therefore add our voices to those urging more serious attention, and action, from national and international bodies. The central problem is one of the massive transfer of carbon from beneath the ground into the atmosphere, caused by humanity’s enormous demands for energy, and current dependence on fossil fuels to supply by far the greatest part of this energy."

and...

"We urge serious, and immediate, consideration of these issues. The dangers posed by climate change are no longer merely possible and long-term. They are probable, imminent, and global in scope."
18

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/05/2009 09:59:01
As Seanie's posts make clear, it is not politicians that are "really qualified to make a judgement" about global warming, as #12 Andy Ritchie's left boot wrongly asserts, but the scientific community that is sending increasingly concerned messages on this subject.

The latest study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, "indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees."

See:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

5.2C would be a catastrophic amount of warming. Far from our politicians leading the concern about global warming, they are seriously behind the curve. There will always be idiots who will continue in denial, as these threads abundantly illustrate, but politicians should be there to make informed rational decisions, and in that they are failing us.
19

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/05/2009 10:35:16
The MIT study mentioned in #19 above emphasises the difference, as far as global warming is concerned, between continuing with "business as usual" and taking strong action now to deal with the problem.

"If strong policies are put in place now to drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions." then the catastrophic outcomes can be avoided, the MIT report insists. "Without action, "there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated," Prinn [report co-author] says. "This increases the urgency for significant policy action.""

"it is essential to start making major changes through adoption of significant national and international policies as soon as possible", Prinn says. "The least-cost option to lower the risk is to start now and steadily transform the global energy system over the coming decades to low or zero greenhouse gas-emitting technologies."

The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has just done exactly the opposite.

20

Unimpressed one,

27/05/2009 11:59:45
#20, Slioch, "There will always be idiots who will continue in denial"

Too true. In denial that temperatures have ceased to increase despite increasing CO2 levels. In denial that the sun drives the climate, not the existence of a trace gas. In denial that there is no real evidence that humans can influence climate. In denial that most of the so called 'peer reviewed' papers on the subject are pure tripe. As for the MIT projections, yet more denial that climate modelling is worthless.

What you and others like you who place blind faith in science, fail to understand that a good number of scientific pronouncements on a whole range of subjects are often proved to be downright wrong and even idiotic, given the fullness of time. 'Climate change' will be one of these.

21

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 27/05/2009 12:18:27
These disaster predictions by the likes of Seanie and Slioch are total nonsense and really do not stand up to any form of Scrutiny.
Two common ones are sea level rise and arctic ice.
In fact the sea level scare was due to one measurement of 2.3mm rise in Singapore which was then applied across the board as a prediction. When the "scientist concerned was asked, he replied that he had to show a trend !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then we have the so called disappearing Arctic ice - isn't it strange that a photograph taken in 1959 shows a submarine in clear water at the exact same location that the eco nutters like seanie and slioch would have us all believe that it is the dreaded global warming making it disappear.
No doubt climate change happens, but it happens with or without our help.
22

seanie,

27/05/2009 12:19:01
Ceased to increase?

Hardly.

The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which were warmer than the five before them, which were warmer than the five before that.

When average temperatures go up that's called warming.
23

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/05/2009 12:30:08
#21 Unimpressed one

I note that, as ever, you provide no evidence to support your false assertions. They are falsehoods that have firmly attached themselves in your mind, in defiance of the evidence, because that is what you want to believe. That is what denial is all about.

With reference to your various false assertions:

1. For correlation between CO2 and Temperature and lack of such correlation with sunspots, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

2. For recent temperature changes see:

These are the five year average global temperatures since 1974 from the Met Office Hadley Centre (HADCRUT3). Every five year period has been warmer than the previous one (except 1984-1988) and that trend continues.

Years Anomaly (1961-1990 = 0deg.C).
1974-1978 –0.136C
1979-1983 +0.087C
1984-1988 +0.066C
1989-1993 +0.147C
1994-1998 +0.296C
1999-2003 +0.382C
2004-2008 +0.416C

see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv

Taking five year periods helps to smooth out the annual variations in temperature so that the underlying long-term trend is evident.
24

frank mcbride,

lusitania 27/05/2009 13:09:30
seanie & slioch.

Historical records suggest that we are in a relative warm period , at this period in time, and probably heading towards another ice age.

We are in a NORMAL earth climate cicle: climate change is NORMAL.

see: http://199.6.131.12/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
25

seanie,

27/05/2009 13:16:11
We may be heading towards another ice age in the longer term, but if we manage to increase average temperature by 5.2C this century we'll cause a catastrophic mass extinciton.
26

seanie,

27/05/2009 13:17:37
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's physical properties and role as such have been accepted science for over a century; since about 1860.

CO2 levels have risen signifcantly since the onset of industrialisation; from around 280ppm to around 385ppm. There is no scientific dispute on this.

That increase is due to human activity. We know this from the entirely uncontroversial fact that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, and the equally obvious fact that we've been burning a lot of fossil fuels since the onset of industrialisation.

The isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere also confirms this.

That an increase in C02 should generally lead to an increase in temperature is not some wild and extravagant speculation. It's exactly what accepted scientific understanding tells us to expect.

It might be possible that there is some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism that is responsible for the warming trend. But that seems unlikely since we'd also have discover some hitherto completely unknown reason why the increase in CO2 isn't causing it.

Because basic physics tells us IT SHOULD BE.
27

danbob,

27/05/2009 13:22:46
27 You speak of a lot of scientific understanding. and scientific fact, and scientific this and scientific that. The problem is if scientists came along tomorrow and did a complete about turn, you would turn with them. Do you ever think for yourself?
28

seanie,

27/05/2009 13:48:04
Yep. But I'm not in a position to independently verify every area of science. I have neither the time, the expertise, nor the inclination. So by and large I accept the scientific consensus.

And since all science is provisional, fundamental changes in scientific understanding are posssible. If the scientific consensus shifted I'd be inclined to go along with it, although I'd want to understand the broad reasons for the change.

29

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/05/2009 13:48:49
#25 frank mcbride

The article you link to gives a brief description of global temperature changes through time. It seems accurate enough, the only mistake being to attribute the Vostok temperatures as global rather than regional (Antarctic).

The fact that temperatures have changed in the past due to non-human causes in no way negates the possibility of them changing in recent times due to human causes: indeed, how could it?

Moreover, none of the causes of these non-human caused changes in the past (eg. orbital changes, see Milankovitch, or changes in solar insolation) are able to account for recent changes in temperature.

Most studies suggest that, in the absence of human intervention in the climate, the Earth should experience a very slow decline in global temperatures until a new ice age in perhaps 20,000 years. It is not imminent, and has little relevance to present concerns over AGW.
30

danbob,

27/05/2009 13:58:31
29# So your one of the sheep that follows everywhere the scientists go. Fair enough. But why do the sheep insist on telling the non sheep they are wrong to have a different viewpoint.

Everytime a story comes out on the news about global warming they wheel out the image of the ice falling off the end of a glacier in Greenland. It's guaranted to get the sheep going. The fact that ice falls off the glacier every year is never mentioned. Where the hell do people think the iceburg that sank the titanic came from?
31

Unimpressed one,

27/05/2009 13:58:38
Slioch, even you must accept that computer modelling is not science - never has been and never will be. What happens when yet another model 'predicts' 10 degree rise or more? will you accept such drivel without question? Do you really think any of these alarmist claims bear any resemblance to how the real climate is responding?
32

seanie,

27/05/2009 14:10:09
When it comes to science, the views of scientists carry far greater weight than non-scientists. Scientists are the ones with the knowledge and expertise to investigate, evaluate the evidence and reach conclusions.

And the overwhelming scientific consensus is that AGW is a real and pressing issue. You're entitled to a different point of view.

But you're not entitled to be taken seriously.

33

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/05/2009 14:13:44
#32 "computer modelling is not science"

What a ridiculous statement! You understand neither science nor computer modelling, Unimpressed one. You simply believe what you want to believe and will no doubt continue to do so, irrespective of the evidence.
34

El Franko,

27/05/2009 15:37:20
The tide of greenie garbage may at last be beginning to turn in the minds of politicians. It turned long ago in the mind of scientists and the more astute commentators, and no end of quotes from corrupted science bodies such as the now infamous Royal Society of London will change that reality.

The starting point to grasp about climate is that CO2 is of negligible importance in influencing it. There is neither data nor mechanism to support any other conclusion.

Those excitable/nervous/subversive folks who have nailed their colours to the unpleasant and unprincipled greenie movement have got some maneuvering to do!
35

seanie,

27/05/2009 16:01:10
The physical properties of CO2 and its role as a greenhouse gas is entirely uncontroversial rock solid science.
36

Unimpressed one,

27/05/2009 17:04:26
Slioch as a former electronics design engineer, please believe me when I say computers can't model climate. Scientists are as gullible as the next person and when it comes to believing the results of their own software. And when it comes to REAL science as opposed to internet junk, I think I'll be proven right in the end. Oh, and when are you going to rise to my challenge to name one environmental scare story that has proved to be correct?
37

Unimpressed one,

27/05/2009 17:14:35
"When it comes to science, the views of scientists carry far greater weight than non-scientists. Scientists are the ones with the knowledge and expertise to investigate, evaluate the evidence and reach conclusions."


This explains your naive views.
38

GlenB,

27/05/2009 17:17:26
Climate - a system that contains quite a lot of chaos and probably more than that caused by any changes in CO2.

If we managed to stop our entire output in one year then by the end of that year China and the other growing economies will have replaced it.

Can our politicians stop talking about stupid targets and get on with more important things.
39

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 27/05/2009 18:42:03
"Faced by a deteriorating environment, uncertain world energy supplies and pressure to act on climate change, the Chinese government is trying to shift towards a more sustainable model of development. It is experimenting with ecocities and introducing new green building codes."

-today in The Guardian.


Even the Chinese now accept that climate change is a serious problem and are beginning to do something about it, and that includes a big expansion of wind and solar power.
40

GlenB,

27/05/2009 19:01:10
Just because China is changing its approach to energy issues it does not follow that they "now accept that climate change is a serious problem."

Keeping in step with the rest of the world's paranoia may well be good for trade and development.
41

Shave,

Edinburgh 27/05/2009 19:28:32
#37 Unimpressed one

Ignorant anti-science naysayers opposed the Clean Air Act of 1956.

Since the act was enforced there have been no more deadly smogs like that of 1952 which killed at least 12,000 people in London alone.
42

frank mcbride,

lusitania 27/05/2009 19:49:26
#40, fred bloggs, et al.

China has changed policy because, even, their politicians know that fossil/minable fuels are finite.

Finally we have come to the realisation that recycling nature is the way to go; it has nothing to do with global warming/freezing or climate change.

Global warming/freezing/climate change are the bogeymen to assist energy production change.

Why, else, would the oil companies be the leaders in this change?

Could it be that there is much more profit to be made from renewable sources?

Please don't quote the exorbitant, "current" LOL costs as the costs will be negligible after development.
Remember, the costs for coal, oil and nuclear were, in their time, astronomical.
43

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/05/2009 21:47:01
#43 frank mcbride

"the oil companies ... the leaders in this change?"

Have you completely lost touch with reality or are you deliberately lying?

Take a look at the amount of money that ExxonMobil have spent trying to deny the truth about global warming, as irrefutably documented by the US Union of Concerned Scientists, here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

Or consider the $45m recently spent by fossil fuel companies trying to undermine Obama's efforts to move to a greener US.

44

seanie,

28/05/2009 00:05:53
#38

Naive?

I rather think it was a statement of the bleeding obvious.

The opinion of scientists, working in the relevant fields, SHOULD be given greater weight than other opinions. That's not to say the scientific consensus is necessarily right.

But it's a much better guide to truth than the ignorant ramblings of denialist, contrarian, fantasists.

45

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 08:41:44
China is making huge efforts to combat climate change:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/27/china-climate-change
46

boxthejack,

Aberdeenshire 28/05/2009 10:28:00
Thank you Seanie and Siloch for taking the time to debunk the self-serving 'arguments' of those who at first say the science is in their favour and then tell us that the science isn't in their favour but it's the scientists who are wrong.

Your patience is appreciated.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.