Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Energy price hike sends up greenhouse gas emissions

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: 23 May 2008
AS THE Scottish Government announces it is stepping up efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, latest figures yesterday revealed emissions are increasing.


Statistics released by the Scottish Government showed rose by 8 per cent in 2006, partly because of the rise in the price of gas. The increase in Scotland's emissions reverses recent trends which saw greenhouse gases fall in Scotland between 19
90 and 2005.

This rise is mainly because of a shift to dependency on coal-fired power stations, which produce almost three times the per unit of electricity as gas.

Yesterday, John Swinney, the finance secretary, said the year ahead was "a critical one for addressing climate change", and warned that more needed to be done to tackle emissions.

But with fuel prices rising and the credit crunch tightening, experts last night said the latest statistics suggested Scotland would find it harder to hit its ambitious target of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Mr Swinney said: "Scotland can, and must, play its part in seizing opportunities to reduce emissions.

"Later this year, we will frame in law our commitment to reduce Scottish emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, the most ambitious statutory target anywhere in the world.

"Much has been achieved over the past year, but it is clear that more needs to be done."

Mr Swinney was speaking at the launch of a report which suggested there would be a "significant" rise in Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions for 2006 compared to the previous year.

Power companies have increasingly sought to prop up their interests in ageing, cheaper coal-fired power stations amid rising gas prices, greater consumer and manufacturing demand and the temporary decommissioning of nuclear power stations.

The figures on emissions are contained in the second annual report on Scotland's climate change programme.

The report states: "Although the 1990-2005 trend shows a reduction in emissions, emissions can vary significantly from year to year, often due to factors outwith government control. Published figures for emissions from Scottish sites in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in 2006 suggest these will lead to a significant increase of around 8 per cent of Scottish emissions compared with 2005.

"This rise is principally due to a shift to more coal-fired electricity production that year as the relative price of gas increased."

Nick McGregor, an oil and gas analyst at the stockbroker Redmayne Bentley, said: "Broadly speaking, gas prices have gone up eightfold in the last decade, while coal prices have only doubled although they are starting to accelerate as well.

"Ten years ago, power companies were talking about phasing out coal-fired power stations, but now they can't afford to.

"Coal-fired stations that were facing decommissioning will be propped up and there will be investment to prolong their lives. More electricity is being produced at Longannet power station in Fife and Cockenzie in East Lothian (both coal-fired].

"This is going to threaten the Scottish Government, hitting their targets, because coal is so more polluting than gas.

"A lot of European countries that signed up to fairly ambitious targets are starting to backtrack, and Scotland might have to as well. I guess the hope is to offset some of that pollution by using renewable technologies, but the percentage of overall output is marginal and the economics are terrible – wind turbines are hugely expensive and the profit margins are wafer-thin.



Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland,

said: "To reach the 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, the Scottish Government would have to eliminate the use of any coal-fired power stations without the use of carbon capture and storage. Extending the life of the existing (coal-fired stations] without doing this is the wrong direction.

"This current government and the last one have done a reasonable job of promoting renewable energy, but because they have not addressed energy saving with the same vigour, that has meant that we are vulnerable to these sort of changes in the world markets."

A spokesman for ScottishPower said the company's emissions had reduced from 80 million tonnes in 2006 to 15 million tonnes in 2007. He added: "The Longannet power plant did operate to a high extent but that is because there was issues with the nuclear fleet.

"We have been making changes to the Longannet and Cockenzie power plants, making them run more efficiently."

A Scottish Government spokesman insisted the targets programme was viable, and full statistics for 2006, once released, would probably show more electricity was produced via renewable sources than coal-fired power stations.

He said: "The latest energy statistics show that in Scotland between 2005 and 2006, electricity generated by renewable sources, apart from hydro-natural flow, increased by 46 per cent. Continuation of the rate of growth in these other renewables would result in achievement of the Scottish Government's renewable electricity targets of 31 per cent by 2011 and 50 per cent by 2020.

A spokesman for the Scottish Green Party said: "The SNP administration must now do more than set targets. They must act quickly to reduce our dependence on ever-more expensive fossil fuels. If they do not, the price will be paid both by the climate and by consumers."

epykett@scotsman.com



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 May 2008 11:51 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Environment
 
1

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/05/2008 00:21:18
But mummy said I could drive the Range rover to school, she was using the Sherman tank to day for her imperial classes.
2

,

23/05/2008 01:21:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

TommyKaye,

UK 23/05/2008 03:34:21
Well with Liebour crashing and burning in Crewe Gordon Brown will be gone and a new Liebour leader will be in place by August further destabilising Scottish Liebour and pushing them back down to third or fourth choice.

Could not happen to a nicer bunch of people who have done nothing for Scotland but everything for themselves with their snouts in the taxpayers trough.

Scotland should be run by Scottish people for the Scottish people and by the Scottish people.

Only a fool likes a London rule.
4

W Smith,

Middle East 23/05/2008 05:13:55
So the year ahead is "a critical one for addressing climate change" then, eh Swinney?

I disagree.

It will be a 'critical one' for addressing job losses you clown.

Doesn't this man read up on the economy?

Never heard that Aberdeen Asset Management is considering moving our of Aberdeen and the UK - because oF TAX, NOT TRIDENT, YOU KILTED EEJITS?

As English voters are up in arms about more 'socialist' taxation Salmond is busy prattling on about Trident and his sidekick Swinney is making comments like this.

Truth is the SNP don't know what they're talking about.

Alex Salmond gets all nervous about ship to ship oil transfer (never heard of 'bunkering' eh Salmond?).

No wonder the poor man gets in a left wing tizzy about nuclear energy.

As for the 'we can be like Denmark' nonsense - that fantasy is over. After 35 years of playing around with windmills the Danish national grid is still connected to nuclear power stations in Sweden and Germany.

A fact that the 'greens' forgot to mention.
5

W Smith,

Middle East 23/05/2008 05:37:05
Just read the good news.

The infidels of finance, the Labour Party, just got a good kicking in Crewe.

The Tories turned Labour's 7,000 majority into their own 7,000 majority - a massive swing of 17%.

Now the Salmondistas would have us believe this is because the working class voters in Crewe are really upset about TRIDENT, IRAQ WAR and CO2 emmissions.

Nice Try - from the left wing wackos!

My guess is they're fed up of 'green' taxes which are just an excuse to screw working class people for more money.

Meanwhile the Old Labour millionaires, from Benn to Dalyell, hardly notice the rise in petrol prices.

Like the Marie Antionettes of environmentalism, the attitude seems to be "if the poeple can't afford petrol - let them cycle to work".

The SNP millionaires at leadership level (Salmond, Mather, etc) are just as bad.

Paul McCartney's hybrid Lexus cost £85,000.

So how much did Salmond's cost then, eh?

Salmond can afford to prattle on about the environment - not sure many of those Scots about to lose their jobs in the coming year.
6

Isonomia,

Lenzie 23/05/2008 06:52:18
What does it matter how much CO2 we produce in the short time before prices go sky high and none of us can afford to produce any CO2?

The simple fact is that world temperatures are now coming down by 0.11C per decade this century and this is really bad news for us in Scotland because a drop in temperature will really add to our heating bills at a time when many will be unable to heat their homes.
7

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 07:47:02
Apparently astronomical studies have shown that global temperatures on Mars have increased in recent years. This must have been caused by all those Martians driving their 4x4s.
8

bumpkin,

23/05/2008 08:08:56
typical mis information from the hootsmon, just like last saturdays front page, straight out of the beano.
If this paper stuck to the facts, less people would be cancelling it at the newsagent.
If you want good reporting, buy the press and journal.
9

Unimpressed one,

23/05/2008 08:11:17
"Yesterday, John Swinney, the finance secretary, said the year ahead was "a critical one for addressing climate change", and warned that more needed to be done to tackle emissions."

Why??

Emissions have increased yearly, global temperatures have remained stable and last year was cooler than any other for some decades.

Now will there will be the usual crowd of deniers who will rant that climate change has been put on hold and that we are still on course for the predicted holocaust. The fact is more and more sensible scientists have now seen the light and jumped ship. The hypothesis is just that. but it's not now tenable. Unfortunately our green politicians and their ignorant lackeys cling to the belief that we can 'save the world' if only we will listen to them. Pathetic.
10

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 23/05/2008 08:27:11
So if more electricity is being produced at Longannet & Cockenzie, just where are all the claimed emission saving from wind turbines coming from.
John Swinney simply does not have a clue about energy production or climate, not that energy production has anything to do with the climate.
11

Greenheatman,

TAIN 23/05/2008 09:22:57
You cannot blame Swinney for not understanding electricity production and, judging from the posts that appear here, neither does anybody else. Simply counting up all the random MWh of electricity generated by monster wind turbines is not the correct way of measuring effect.

Electricity needs to be consumed in the nanosecond of production - there is no storage on the national grid - this is where some idiot will post something about pumped storage - but forget to mention that Cruachan can only run continuously for 22 hours before it runs out of water. In other words, this lame suggestion is just that, lame.

Clearly, the solution is blindingly obvious, use all renewable energy sources including wind, wave and tidal to raise steam - and generate electricity in the conventional way.

Sadly, our much lauded increase of renewables by 46% is down to the rapid increase in burning biomass, cogeneration and landfill methane which accounts for around 75% of the increase.

Burning anything, to make our electricity, is never going to be a good idea

12

Liz,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 09:36:46
#3
Are you actually commenting on the article or just spouting rubbish?!
13

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 23/05/2008 09:41:51
Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland,

said: "To reach the 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, the Scottish Government would have to eliminate the use of any coal-fired power stations without the use of carbon capture and storage. Extending the life of the existing (coal-fired stations] without doing this is the wrong direction."

Hey Duncan - ever heard the phrase 'cloud cuckoo land'?

Your days as 'Chief executive' of FOE (Fibbers on the Environment' are numbered. BTW - how many 'executives' are there at FOE? You have lied about 'global warming'; are still lying about 'climate change'. You have not a shred of evidence that Carbon Dioxide emissions CAUSE global warming - in fact all the science points to the opposite. There has been NO planetary warming since 1998 but CO2 levels have risen constantly. You have helped cover Scotland;s best tourism scenery in useless windmills - which we have paid for by stealth taxes. One of your former FOE 'Chief Executives' in Edinburgh - has had his snout in the tax trough working for a major wind developer. Nice to keep it in the family eh?

You have campaigned for greater and greater fuel taxes - not giving a damn about the effect on rural communities. You have never run a corner shop. You could not run a corner shop. FOE is a dead parrot.
14

BonnyBird,

Livingston 23/05/2008 09:47:36
So what if anything have any of you done to lessen your imprint in carbon.
Nevermind what others are saying or doing, what are you doing. Stop the charade that you know better or something that no one else does, do your bit. Imitation is the best form of flattery if you do something worth while others will follow.
As we stride ever closer to peak oil .... think, no one is going to save you so you had better learn to save yourself ... talk is cheap
15

The wilkman,

Isle of Skye 23/05/2008 10:39:24
quote from 15
Tweedmouth,
Coldstream

" ........... FOE (Fibbers on the Environment' are numbered. BTW - how many 'executives' are there at FOE? You have lied about 'global warming'; are still lying about 'climate change'. You have not a shred of evidence that Carbon Dioxide emissions CAUSE global warming - in fact all the science points to the opposite. There has been NO planetary warming since 1998 but CO2 levels have risen constantly. You have helped cover Scotland;s best tourism scenery in useless windmills - ......"

I knew the Tweed has a big mouth but I'd no idea it was so polluted!!
16

Alan B,

23/05/2008 11:51:53
#It wassnae me

They have a target of 50% renewables for electricity by 2020.

Unfortunately holyrood does not control transportation and its associated taxes and much is done from the asylum in westminster.
17

Big Eddie,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 11:59:35
Had to laugh at Mr Unimpressed talking about "deniers". Who said that irony was dead? :)
18

Kool_Andy,

Paris 23/05/2008 12:08:46
"Energy price hike sends up greenhouse gas emissions
...
By BY EMILY PYKETT"
ENERGY ? Good start !! It's gas price increases - not energy - which are causing the switch to coal-fired power stations (and hence the increase in greenhouse gases).
"By By" - maybe that should be "Bye bye" ;)

#6 You are wrong on both accounts. There is still enough oil (and even more coal - the point of this article) to keep increasing CO2 emissions for several more decades (oil) or centuries (coal).

As for the temperature - widely accepted estimates are for an average surface temperature increase of 2 to 6 °C by the end of the 21st century : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/global_warming_update5.html
19

seanie,

23/05/2008 18:27:21
#10 "...last year was cooler than any other for some decades."

Once again you're just making up nonsense.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001"
20

Joey Pica,

Hells Kitchen 23/05/2008 19:17:12
#24 Thanks for the link - Looks like it all started in ernest when Margaret Thatcher took over in 1979.
21

Unimpressed one,

24/05/2008 08:56:55
#24, You're just so full of it. Face facts, the climate is not getting warmer and that's official. Time to believe in some other myth that gives you a nice warm feeling.
22

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:55:40
Well you're the one that said

"...last year was cooler than any other for some decades."

which is completely and utterly untrue.

23

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:57:02
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001."

"The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Twelve of the thirteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past thirteen years (1995-2007). The only year in the last thirteen not among the warmest twelve is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."
24

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:57:12
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
25

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:57:26
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_globaltemp.htm

"To determine if warming has recently stopped, consider the data from the past eight years, from 2000 to 2007. This is a more meaningful comparison than 1998 to 2007, as 1998 temperatures were anomalously high as a result of the "El Niño of the century" (pdf), a natural cyclical event that produced an enormous temperature spike relative to surrounding years. Choosing an El Niño year as that start of the dataset would amount to rather egregious cherry picking (though both GISS temp and HadCRU would still show a warming trend over the decade)."

"Over the past eight years, Earth has warmed 0.025 degrees C per year according to GISS, and 0.014 degrees C per year according to HadCRU, so GISS shows slightly faster warming than over the long-term trend of 0.018 degrees C per year, and HadCRU shows warming slightly slower."
26

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:57:46
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."
27

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:58:00
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."
28

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:58:16
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/images/pr20070104.gif

Look at the blue line. That's the running mean.

Did it continue to rise after 1998?

Why yes. Yes it did.
29

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:58:27
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

That's the HadCRU temperature data. It shows 1998 as the peak individual year. But look at the second column - the running mean. Since 1998 the average global temperature has risen significantly.
30

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:58:43
The NASA/GISS data for global temperatures;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The ten hottest years worldwide since 1880 were:

2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995.
31

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:59:31
See that?

The GISS dataset puts 2007 as the second warmest year on record.
32

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:59:43
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Watch that red line climb.
33

seanie,

24/05/2008 09:59:57
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999."

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.