Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scottish Government must say 'no' to unabated coal

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: 02 February 2009
In his letter to Alex Salmond (your report, 31 January), Dr Jim Hansen is absolutely right to suggest that "alternative approaches must be considered which ensure an effective moratorium on new unabated coal power".
The Scottish Government can take such an alternative approach by requiring all new coal plants in Scotland to conform to an emissions performance standard allowing them to emit a maximum of 350g of per kWh of electricity produced. This would rule ou
t any coal plant without fully operational carbon capture and storage.

Scottish ministers are considering their planning guidance on this issue right now. They have the perfect opportunity to ensure that they do not lock Scotland into a carbon-intensive future, a path towards dangerous climate change and the tipping point that Dr Hansen mentions.

They can also set an example to China, India and other countries in doing so. Hundreds of millions of people in some of the world's poorest countries are already feeling the devastating effects of climate change. The Scottish Government must take its global responsibilities seriously and say "no" to unabated coal.

LIZ MURRAY

World Development Movement

Rose St

Edinburgh

You credit Dr Jim Hansen with being "one of the world's leading climate change experts", but it might be more balanced to point out that he was the author of the infamous "hockey stick" graph of supposed temperatures, which is now utterly discredited, and that his former supervisor at Nasa recently stated that he embarrassed that organisation with his alarmist claims.

ANDREW DUFFIN

Barganock Road

Kirkmichael, Ayrshire





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 01 February 2009 8:03 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

seanie,

02/02/2009 10:24:49
Dr Hansen was not an author of the 'hockey stick' graph and in any event the 'hockey stick' has been confirmed by numerous subsequent studies.
2

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/02/2009 10:59:26
Seanie is correct. Andrew Duffin's letter is typical of the misinformed comments of AGW deniers both about the "hockey stick" graph, (which originated in a paper by Mann et al, 1998/9), and Dr James Hansen.

With respect to the "Hockey stick" graph, because of the controversy surrounding the Mann et al 1998/9 papers the US National Academy of Sciences National Research Council conducted an in-depth study into this matter and published their report in 2006. You can find it here (Summary page 2):
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2

where it shows a graph of eight later reconstructions, which, like Mann et al, show average global temperatures in recent decades to be at least as warm, if not warmer, than during the MWP.

The NAS NRC states,
"Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900."

and further,

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years."
3

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 02/02/2009 11:06:20
The Scotsman on Saturday carried a report by Mr Van der Veer of Shell that Asia alone will build 800GW of NEW coal- fired generation over the next 10 years.
This equal to the EU's total electricity generating capacity today"

In Scotland there are two coal-fired power stations which generate approx. 3500MW. So even without co-firing, carbon capture or other cleanup we will be responsible for enhancement of "climate change" by up to only a few thousandths of one degree(C) over one hundred years!
What a nonsense then, to endanger base load electricity and our economy in an assinine effort to, so called, 'lead the world' by panicking and closing them down.

4

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 02/02/2009 11:23:19
Jim Hansen was the chap who last year said that trains carrying coal to power stations were the equivalent of the trains carrying Jews to Auschwitz.
You couldn't sum up the greenies twisted view of the world better than that.
5

seanie,

02/02/2009 11:35:10
What he actually said was;

"Recently, after giving a high school commencement talk in my hometown, Denison, Iowa, I drove from Denison to Dunlap, where my parents are buried. For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.”

You may find the imagery uncomfortable, but if we fail to stabilise or reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we face catastrophic climate change and the potential for mass extinction.
6

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 02/02/2009 12:05:01
#5 Many thanks for confirming everything in my post.
7

seanie,

02/02/2009 12:08:49
Except, of course, the mention of Jews and Auschwitz.
8

seanie,

02/02/2009 12:16:31
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.html

“A low-range optimistic estimate of 2°C of 21st century warming will shift the Earth’s global mean surface temperature into conditions which have not existed since the middle Pliocene, 3 million years ago. More than 4°C of atmospheric heating will take the planet’s climate back, within a century, to the largely ice-free world that existed prior to about 35 million years ago. The average ‘species’ lifetime’ is only 1 to 3 million years. So it is quite possible that in the comparative geological instant of a century, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that most of the world’s modern species have encountered.”
9

seanie,

02/02/2009 12:18:32
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

“Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of prior human history. The eventual response to doubling preindustrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice free planet.”

“Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions,for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.”

“The most difficult task, phase out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.”
10

seanie,

02/02/2009 12:20:12
What’s concerning many people, including scientists working in the field, is that AGW really could be a major concern for life on the planet as it currently exists.

There is considerable uncertainty about what might happen when, what feedback effects might kick in, positive or negative etc. But we know there’s a timelag for the warming effects and we know that CO2 emissions, far from being reduced, have continued to increase.

If this continues, or the temperature rise turns out to be at the high end of the predictions, then the possibility of catastrophic effects appears real.

There have been mass extiction events before associated with climactic change, some of them warming events. And even if the temperature rise was less this time round, the comparative rapidity could have devestating impacts on ecological sytems already stressed by human impact.

A mass extinction event may be an outlier, but there’s evidence to suggest it’s a real possibility if action isn’t taken to reduce emissions.
11

The Strategist,

02/02/2009 12:38:59
#5

He has to use this type of emotive imagery because there is so little substance to his argument.
12

seanie,

02/02/2009 12:52:32
A temperature rise of 2°C has generally been taken as a ’safe’ level, but it looks pretty unlikely we’ll manage that. There’s now talk of trying to limit the increase to 4°C, despite all the uncertainties of feedbacks.

The point of the Hansen paper above was that previous estimes on climate sensitivity to CO2 have been too conservative, leaving out longer term feedback effects.

Instead of a doubling of CO2 (which we’re on course to do) causing a 3°C rise, it could lead to a 6°C rise.

6°C is mass extinction territory.

So given all the uncertainties and the possibility of positive feedbacks, the level of CO2 that currently exists may already be dangerously high.
13

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/02/2009 14:04:36
#11 The Strategist claimed Hansen "has to use this type of emotive imagery because there is so little substance to his argument."

He uses this kind of imagery because he is dealing with a largely scientifically illiterate population, a significant proportion of which is in denial and refusing to believe anything that suggests that their cosy and ignorant view of how the Earth's climate works might be foolishly optimistic.

As for "little substance": Hansen has published numerous peer-reviewed papers providing plenty of substance to his warnings. See, for example:
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
14

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 02/02/2009 14:50:06
#7 - I think everyone is aware of what "death trains" refers to.

The imagery is not "uncomfortable" oe "emotive" it is obnoxious. It says more about the people that subscribe to it - Slioch in particular - than they will ever realise.
15

seanie,

02/02/2009 14:57:11
If Hansen is correct about longer term climate sensitivity, and CO2 levels continue to rise, then we could indeed trigger a mass extinction event.

All the horrors of human history combined would pale into insignificance compared to that.
16

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 02/02/2009 15:13:47
The gentleman listed to give a talk this evening on 'Travelling in the Arctic and Antarctic' has phoned in to call off due to weather conditions, so I hope this thread is not going to fold.
17

fred bear,

02/02/2009 15:58:41
#13 Slioch

I often feel that I am dealing with a scientifically illiterate population who constantly disbelieve what they are told about the intermittency of wind, the contribution that renewables can realistically make, the operation of an interconnected grid, the real risk from nuclear operations and waste depositories, and numerous other related issues. These people refuse to believe facts solely out of a desire for them not to be true.

It has never occurred to me to use grotesquely offensive imagery of this type.

 

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.