Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Climate Change Bill 'most ambitious anywhere in world'

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: 06 December 2008
WORLD-LEADING climate change targets were announced yesterday for Scotland – but some critics warned that they did not go far enough.



The draft Scottish Climate Change Bill would set targets to slash greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland by 80 per cent by 2050. It would also see emissions cut by 3 per cent each year from 2020, with all six greenhouse gases included.

Emissions from air travel would be included in the targets from the start, making the bill more ambitious than the UK Climate Change Act.

The draft bill does not, however, contain any detail on how the ambitious targets would be achieved. And there were concerns over a lack of targets for emissions cuts from 2009 to 2020. For that period, the bill only lays out plans for a reduction in emissions each year. Only from 2020 would that reduction have to be at least 3 per cent.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said annual targets would be set from 2010 to 2020, after Lord Adair Turner's committee on climate change advised what they should be.

Some groups raised concerns about a lack of sanctions to ensure targets were met, and a lack of detail on whether the targets would have to be met by actually cutting emissions in Scotland, rather than offsetting them with credits bought from abroad.

Stewart Stevenson, the climate change minister, said the measures "show that Scotland is at the forefront of global efforts to tackle climate change".

He added: "This government has taken the bold decision to include all six greenhouse gases and emissions from aviation and shipping within an ambitious 80 per cent target. We are also setting rigorous annual targets."

Mr Stevenson said new policies would be developed to drive the changes needed to meet the targets. He added: "Achieving these targets will be challenging. But I am confident that government, business and the people of Scotland are ready to rise to the challenge of climate change."

Environment groups and opposition politicians were worried by potential "loopholes" in the legislation.

Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth, Scotland, said: "We warmly welcome the introduction of this bill and are confident MSPs of all parties will support its principles and work to strengthen it. This would deliver genuinely world-leading legislation.

"Most importantly, to deliver early significant cuts in line with climate science advice, the annual targets between 2010 and 2020 must be much higher than the bill provides."

Des McNulty, climate change spokesman for Scottish Labour, said: "Labour is particularly concerned that the lack of detail regarding annual targets in this bill could allow the SNP to make it easy on themselves in the short term, allow climate change to continue out of control and leave major reductions to be achieved by future administrations."

The Green MSP Patrick Harvie said it was a "very worthwhile starting point" but added: "There are still too many loopholes.

"I believe it can be the foundation for the most effective legislation yet on climate change anywhere in the world, but it still needs a lot of work."

Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland, said the target of a 50 per cent cut in emissions by 2030 looked "a little unambitious" when the UK government was considering a target of 42 per cent by 2020.

But he added: "This is still the best piece of climate change legislation proposed anywhere in the world. It's better than the UK legislation because it includes aviation and shipping from the start."

The bill, if passed, will enable the Scottish Government to insist on charges for carrier bags and to set enforceable targets for shops to reduce packaging.

It makes controversial provisions for 25 per cent of the forests in Scotland owned by the Forestry Commission to be leased to private companies, to bring in cash to spend on measures to tackle climate change.

People can plan ahead and get ready for emissions cuts

THE targets of 50 per cent emissions reductions by 2030, and particularly 80 per cent by 2050, are very ambitious. However, they have come out of a good consultation process, and they are robust.

The science shows we need at least an 80 per cent reduction from nations like ours.

I do think it is an exemplar bill and the inclusion of annual reductions up to 2020 and 3 per cent reductions from then on, makes it a world leader.

Scotland is well-placed to achieve this, given its renewable resources and expertise.

After 2020, a 3 per cent reduction year on year would be where it really does start affecting everybody. That is when we will start feeling it – industry, individuals, in the public or private sector. That's when things are going to bite.

It's going to be cutting into every facet of our lives because it is ambitious.

But at least we know what's coming. A great thing about the Climate Change Bill is that it means people can plan ahead and get ready for what will be quite radical emissions cuts year on year.

There is huge potential in terms of low-cost reduction in emissions from retrofitting housing.

Hard decisions will be needed. Even if transport gets an easier ride, so you cut emissions from transport by 70 per cent and make up for it with 90 per cent from another sector, it's still going to mean that commuting to work every day in your fossil-fuelled car isn't going to be possible.

In terms of renewable energy sources, there will need to be a huge growth. They will be crucial for supporting the Scottish economy.

If the international community goes the way it looks like it will in Poznan and next year in Copenhagen, we won't just be in a position of the UK having tough targets to meet but much of the world.

So the demand for renewable sources of energy will increase and the price of emitting carbon will increase.

This is the perfect time to look to growing our economy in a green way.

If you have to pick a nation in the world to try to do this, Scotland is the one you would go for because we have got a great combination of natural resources and some of the world's leading experts in terms of technology and climate science.

• Dr David Reay is a climate change expert at the University of Edinburgh.

Jenny Haworth - Radical change needed along the road to 2050 to meet challenging targets

WE MAY become a nation of vegetarians, an army of under-sea turbines could be powering our homes, and we might all be driving electric cars.

It is difficult to predict the changes needed between now and 2050 to meet the ambitious targets to cut emissions by 80 per cent.

However, most experts agree they will have to be radical.

Some research has suggested we should all consider becoming vegetarians in order to reduce emissions from the farming sector.

Air travel, many believe, is likely to become a luxury, rather than a standard way to travel.

And there will either be far fewer cars on the roads, or all the vehicles will be run on electricity or clean fuel.

There will have to be a mass programme to address the inefficiency of millions of homes in Scotland – adding insulation, home energy devices and other measures to cut emissions.

Conventional gas- and coal-fired power stations will have disappeared or have been kitted out with innovative technology – currently in the earliest stages of development – to capture the carbon dioxide so it is not released into the atmosphere.

And it is likely there will be a mass increase in the amount of electricity provided from renewables.

In the short term this is expected to come from huge numbers of new onshore wind turbines, but then offshore farms will start to spring up.

As wave and tidal energy devices come into their own, the seas around Scotland – particularly the Pentland Firth – could be full of futuristic gadgets that capture the energy from the oceans.

If Scotland grasps the opportunities offered by the renewables sector, particularly emerging areas such as marine technology, it could boost the country's economy.

Indeed, some experts predict many positive outcomes could come from efforts to cut emissions. Fuel poverty could become rarer as homes become more energy efficient.

People could become more likely to grow their own vegetables rather than travel to shops – producing emissions from the journey.

If there were fewer cars on the roads, it could become safer to walk and cycle.

And although air travel may have to be tempered, some predict a sense of community could be revitalised with more people forced to stay closer to home for holidays and their social life. Others predict innovative scientific advances will mean few changes are needed and we will all be able to continue living as normal.

Nuclear fusion – where light atomic nuclei join together to form a heavier nucleus, creating huge amounts of energy – if developed could produce all the energy we could ever need, emission free.

Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, summed it up. "Sitting in 2008 and trying to think what 2050 is going to be like is a fun game but you are bound to be totally wrong," he said.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 December 2008 11:39 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

PockSuppet,

06/12/2008 01:18:27
My son will be 61 years old in 2050.

Targets are only accountable if they are set over a period for which the target-setters are accountable.

2

PockSuppet,

06/12/2008 01:57:46
I subscribe to the Clarkson View on global warming.
3

tomi,

06/12/2008 02:36:48
"Back to the Stone Age!" or should it be the "Ice Age"?
4

Guga II,

Rockall 06/12/2008 02:39:42
I'd like to know how we, in Scotland, are supposed to pay for all the extra money this garbage will cost; especially as we are just entering a recession that is liable to go on for anything up to two years.

So many people are going to be losing their jobs, and a large number of people are liable to lose their houses, so I doubt that they will want to be lumbered with extra outgoings to keep the greenies and tree-huggers happy.

In addition, how is Scotland suposed to be able to afford it even at the government level? As it is, we have to go cap in hand to a foreign government to obtain some of our own monies that they have stolen from us.
5

Dr. Francis T. Manns,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada 06/12/2008 03:59:53
The third most important greenhouse gas is CO2, and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high, making seawater a great 'sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.

Correlation is not causation to be sure. The causation has been studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome. As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:

Quiet sun ? reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind ? geomagnetic shield drops ? galactic cosmic ray flux ? more low-level clouds and more snow ? more albedo effect (more heat reflected) ? colder climate

Active sun ? enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind ? geomagnetic shield response ? less low-level clouds ? less albedo (less heat reflected) ? warmer climate

That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool. Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research...

Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than atmospheric scientists have predicted. That may explain the link p
6

Dr. Francis T. Manns,

06/12/2008 04:02:05
(cont.) That may explain the link proposed by members of the Danish team, between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that. In addition, although the post 60s warming period is over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
7

Dr. Francis T. Manns,

The Shire 06/12/2008 04:06:52
The picture at the top of the page is not CO2 or pollution. It is water vapour in winter taken with the sun in the background. It's a red-herring common to media files all over the world.
8

terry osser,

morden 06/12/2008 04:55:29
the lunatics have really taken over the asylum
9

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 06/12/2008 06:20:07
Completely unworkable garbage produced by people who do not live in the real world.
The fact that we are now entering a 30 year cooling period has escaped them in their fight to be the greenest at our expense.
Just exactly how do they propose to control emissions from planes and ships when they enter Scottish airspace and waters?
Do these idiots thing that the planes will glide in and the ships will hoist their sails !!!!!!
Bozo's, Bozo's and even more Bozo's spending our hard earned cash producing what they believe to be politically correct but technically incorrect plans for so far in the future that they will not be accountable when they fail as they are certain to do.

Climate changes - live with it!!!!!!!!!!
10

yockel,

06/12/2008 06:20:32
"The draft Scottish Climate Change Bill"
I know my typing isn't up to much but isn't there an "r" too many in that expression?
11

John Cameron,

St Andrews 06/12/2008 07:08:47
It is simply amazing that in the midst of all our economic troubles, the Global Warming Obsession remains an article of faith. However, when the vulnerable are freezing to death in the long Scottish winters in the years ahead, I am sure it will not be possible to find a single person who did not "know" that Global Warming was total nonsense.
12

E300,

06/12/2008 07:18:46
The 1,100,000,000 Chinese who have never heard of Scotland and the other 100,000,000 who have heard of it and think it is part of England will be really impressed by this target!
13

11+failed,

the pans 06/12/2008 07:38:03
Now that we have been overtaken by Ireland in the world prosperity league table this should ensure that we shall soon be overtaken by Italy,Spain, Greece, Taiwan and Slovenia.
14

Joey Pica,

Igloo Central 06/12/2008 07:54:16
This present cold snap has seen the CO2 output of my home rise by over 700% as the central heating kicked in.

I sometimes wish I could believe in Global Warming, 'cause it sure woukd be a lot cheaper living in the UK in winter.

15

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 06/12/2008 08:04:22
The incipient global economic recession will inevitably reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions which in turn will slow the rate of global warming.

The sceptics will seize on this as proof of their misguided beliefs; however, for those who understand the science it will be an opportunity to observe the continued correlation of temperature with trace gas concentrations which will confirm that meltdown is merely postponed.
16

Harbinger,

06/12/2008 09:04:59
Most ambitious anywhere in the world? The most idiotic.It defies belief that the vested interests of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, WWF and their tame scientists have so managed to control the minds of the politicians. But then so many politicians of all sides from Gore down to our own bunch are actively involved in "green" scams at public expense.
17

,

06/12/2008 09:09:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

GlenB,

06/12/2008 09:16:34
If the predictions about the rise in temperature are true then all of this daft bill will do is delay the the inevitable rise by a day or two in one hundred years.

Cost billions

Effect none.
19

Unimpressed one,

06/12/2008 09:20:35
This is a dangerous game being played by the eco-bams. They are calling the rest of the world's bluff by sacraficing our entire economy in order to set an example of green political correctness but if the rest of the world says "so what?" - the game's over. So far all we've heard about from the nutters are figures of cuts up to 80% and what is going to be severely 'controlled'. We've heard zilch about what this means in terms of standards of living for ordinary people nor what impact it will have on a modern economy.

We do know that our energy bills are liable to increase by at least 25%, that's already been admitted this week. Since 'emissions' are to be taxed from transport this will result in the price of ALL goods increasing annually to meet targets. No doubt at some 'tipping point' in this lunacy, we will be issued with 'carbon ration' cards combined with the dreaded ID card.

We can also assume certain energy intensive products will be either punitively taxed or entirely 'banned' by the new soviets. Building construction will be hit with a raft of new legislative measures deemed to make them 'carbon neutral'.

Now that this lunacy has been made law we can expect more disruption by eco-terrorists enboldened by the fact that no court is likely to prosecute them. However the piece de resistance will surely be new trade barriers by the EU against the 'bad boys' China and India - the world's new power houses for manufacturing. I'm glad I won't be alive to see the worst of this collective insanity but I am deeply concerned about what sort of world my kids will inherit under the green left's idiocy. Welcome to the brave new world.
20

Unimpressed one,

06/12/2008 09:26:40
"This government has taken the bold decision to include all six greenhouse gases and emissions from aviation and shipping within an ambitious 80 per cent target. We are also setting rigorous annual targets."

Control over water vapour? Now that really is ambitious or moronic. Wonder which one?
21

Harbinger,

In Despair 06/12/2008 09:38:35
#18 Wind turbines are ubiquitous, wind energy is not. It would not happen without massive taxpayer subsidy. Then we get ripped off again, Darling just collected £54M from the energy companies for carbon credits, straight off our bills.

Many of the "climate experts" are also non-scientists, not least the chairman of IPCC, who is a railway engineer by training but became an economist and bureacrat. At least he knew a gravy train when he saw one.

The IPCC is run by a core group of political scientists and is totally infiltrated by NGO's. Greenpeace have had their International Climate Change Director esconced at the Potsdam Institute in Germany since 2005, as a "guest" scientist, still on the Greenpeace payroll. He is a lead author of the IPCC AR4 and of the Summary for Policy Makers. Some Trustees of WWF are current or ex-civil srvants and government advisers. Friends of the Earth work closely with the Tyndall Centre which produces masses of social engineering research and is reponsible for the 80% nonsense and the aviation taxes.

The new scientific Adviser to DEFRA and Director of Strategy at Tyndall is the ex-chairman of IPCC, a former employee of the Clinton-Gore White House, Climate adviser to the World Bank and NASA "Director of Mission to Planet Earth". He was warmly congratulated by Al Gore on his appointment, soon after Al visited the UK and became a "climate adviser" to Gordon Brown.

This is a coup, pure and simple.

http://euro-med.dk/?p=5041 - The Shearing of the Sheep: The Grotesque UN Climate Conference in Poznan
22

Gdgy,

06/12/2008 09:42:50
Targets and no ideas......typical of the SNP approach...try and look big but have no ideas and probably no budget....this will just happen because...in the same way that everything will be better in an independent Scotland......
23

A Crofter,

Western Isles 06/12/2008 09:59:38
And welcome to Top Gear!

The flat-earthers seem to have their brains firmly stuck in neutral.
24

11+failed,

the pans 06/12/2008 10:12:18
With the world on course for 2008 to be the coldest year since 1995 seems appropriate that the green brigade want to sign up to some chimera target intended to take us even further down the prosperity league table.
25

JaE_in_Oz,

06/12/2008 10:23:53
I had to scroll back to see what the article was all about after reading the comments. I liked the one about Darwinian selection of birds by wind turbines.
A study here showed that the endangered orange bellied parrot would suffer one death every 667 years due to wind farms. The minister who stopped the development was sacked.
The Lewis peat bog controversy was obvious balderdash, There may have been a location where the peat was 40 feet deep but there were lots more locations where it is zero, the rocks are visible.
Go build that high voltage interconnector!
The air travel levy is a joke, a stopover in Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Amsterdam or Paris (with a Eurostar trip) will take care of it
26

Unimpressed one,

06/12/2008 10:40:42
#28, So Australians will be using the bus now to travel from Sidney to Perth? One thing the greens have in common everywhere is a total lack of science understanding, especially engineering, but a great love at seeing things being banned and controlled. Much like the old soviet politburo.
27

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 06/12/2008 10:54:21
Thank you Dr Mann for summing up the best theory we have of how climate REALLY works. I was at a Christmas dinner in London last year when the subject of Global Warming came up. I said I was sceptical - given that we KNOW that there was a very rapid warming in the Arctic from 1935 to 45 - of more than 6 degrees! The icecaps did not melt, the northwest passage did not open and the warming disappeared with a bang in 1948 when we had the coldest winter on record - followed by a decade of freezing cold winters. Anyway - I was howled down. I suggested that in any system, like the sun and its planets, we should look at the PRODUCTION of heat as a first hypothesis. This was pooh poohed. I asked the assembled educated middle classes if they knew how much bigger the sun was than the earth. The first guy said 50 times bigger; the second said, not it was several hundred times; the third said it might be as much as a thousand times bigger. In fact it is ONE MILLION times greater in volume than planet earth. The sun only has to change by a minute fraction to alter our temperature dramatically. Course the green fantasists don't like physics - it bursts their power trip bubble.
28

Edward,

06/12/2008 11:42:27
Think everyone should actually think about what 80% reduction means
80% reduction of what exactly???
Does Scotland have heavy industry billowing out tonnes of co2 - NO it doesnt!
Does Scotland have much in the way of coal or oil fire power stations - Not much
Does Scotland have large tracts of motorway and clogged up traffic - Nope
So what doe Scotland actually have that the emmissions could be reduced by 80%? Well humans for a start - we could stop breathing, or how about farm animals - get rid of them.
The one thing that Scotlad can be proud of is its open spaces and clear air, you see much of Scotland isnt populated at all, most of its population is in the central belt
So why on earth should Scotland lead the way in reduction by 80%, 80% of what??
29

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 06/12/2008 11:51:22
Thank you, Dr. Francis Mann, for your erudite and understandable posting.

It would seem the anti "greenies" and anti "tree-huggers" are out in their ignorant force today.

When will these deniers ever wake up and smell the pollution?
30

Unimpressed one,

06/12/2008 12:02:57
Strange how Salmond is going to change the planet's atmosphere but he can't even put right the fact that in parts of Glasgow the mortality rate for men is worse than many third world countries. We have some of the worst health statistics in western Europe but for a man who can change the weather by passing a bill, this should be a walk in the park.
31

Unimpressed one,

06/12/2008 12:05:17
#32, Has Canadian snow declined then? Are your winters milder? Didn't think so. Haven't you noticed that just by bleating with the sheep doesn't mean you're right?
32

11+failed,

the pans 06/12/2008 12:19:18
32TimW1234,Ottawa, Canada
No smell of pollution here! Perhaps living in the only developed country in the world to have higher (and increasing)per capita emission levels compared with the USA, or perhaps you are living downwind of the most polluting oil production in the world from your oil sands, giving you a jaundiced view on the world.
33

Geraldine Firequeen,

Pits of Nelson 06/12/2008 12:34:19
why no comment on the OJ Simpson case? Thank God this odious killer has been put behind bars at last. So there is justice, of sorts, though now I suppose they will make a film of his life and he will get a payout?
34

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 06/12/2008 12:38:56
#28 JaE_in_Oz
Sorry to hear about the sad end of the geriatric parrot.

Our leaders seem to think that the introduction of legislation, and not just in this field, will bring about a better world. They are merely attempting to cover their backsides. They usually fail, and miserably. Legislation, and sanctions, are negative in the extreme. Surely it is far better to offer incentives, and liaise closely with commerce and industry where, let's face it, most of the country's talent is situated. What, for example, is the additional cost of triple glazing over double glazing, and are there an immediate quantifiable benefits to the householder, and to society as a whole?

Back, in part, to the parrot, assuming it was female. It must have dropped thousands of eggs in its lifetime, and somewhere along the line a human may have made an omelette out of one, so breaking the egg in the process, I would guess. Accordingly, we are obliged to accept that our activities will have some effect on the planet, or we shall all have to trundle back to the caves and/or earth houses.
35

Unimpressed one,

06/12/2008 12:50:01
#37, the parrot you refer to is only a subspecies of a more common one that is not threatened in any way. However as usual the greenies would have everyone believing that everything that crawls, flies or swims is 'endangered' and only by listening to their advice, can they be saved.
36

Unimpressed one,

06/12/2008 12:52:12
"When will these deniers ever wake up and smell the pollution?"

We can smell something alright, but it's not related to atmospheric 'pollution'.
37

The Strategist,

06/12/2008 13:12:26
And the commercial benefit to Scotland of adopting all these targets will be?

Well we don't build large scale wind turbines, the Norwegians and others will beat us to the tidal energy market, the wave energy market is being sustained by the Portugese, we don't make solar cells or heat pumps, we don't make wood pellet boilers, we have two very small undercapitalised fuel cell companies, we don't make electric cars like the Norwegians although there is one company looking at electric vans, we don't make any carbon capture kit, we don't make biomass burning systems and so on and so forth..


38

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 06/12/2008 13:15:42
#38
Threatened, or not, the wretched thing was 667 years old, for goodness sake, and was stupid enough to fly into a wind turbine.
:-)
... and another one,
:-)
39

Phil1,

Edinburgh 06/12/2008 13:47:50
Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland bemoans unambitious target of 50% reduction..


well some people always moan.

OK Mr Goody Twoshoes - publish the details of WWF Scotland's use of gas and electricity and fuel for vehilces heating etc includng flights, cars, trains etc for 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2008 (forecast). Let us all see the great strides you have actually made as an organisation over the past 8 years.

I'll bet they have all gone up - growing organisation, lots of new tasks, many more staff, much wider remit for the organsiation plenty of excuses eh?

The trouble with Green Goody twoshoes is that it is always us that has to do something not them.

So Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland put your own house in order and prove you have made more than 50% reductions since 2000 then you can preach to us in the meantime don't be such a hypocrit.
40

Ewan Oosami,

06/12/2008 13:49:40
For every 'expert' who tells us we should be worried about global warming there's two telling us the opposite. Experts give opinions biased towards those that are paying them to do so. It's a load of bollards. If the earth, in it's long and varied history, is going to warm up again then it will do so whether the greenies, tree-huggers and other dross pontificate or not.
Scotland contribution to pollution is negligible compared with the pollution caused by international junkets organised to discus the subject and the constant hot air spouted by the greenies
41

Thistledhu,

06/12/2008 13:55:42
None of these measures matter a jot or will be anything of significance as long as China, India, and the US carry on belting out pollution as they do.
All these measures will do is put Scotland at an economical disadvantage.
42

Thistledhu,

06/12/2008 14:01:42
The reality here is this just part of a political deal with the greens and lib dems to gain support for other measures at holy rood,
The whole Bill is not worth the paper it is printed on!!!!
43

Mack1,

Carlisle 06/12/2008 14:10:04
So, the SNP continue with their grand-standing policies that will reduce further the competitiveness of the Scottish economy.

As has been mentioned by many other respondents global warming is a hypothesis: climate change has always been with us and is driven by many more factors other than the CO2 emissions favoured by the simple-minded and band-wagon hitchers.

The real threat to the planet, conveniently ignored by politicians, is the continued growth in the human population.
44

Geomac 1,

Scotland 06/12/2008 14:20:59
Has anyone any idea how much taxpayers money has been spent on this so called world beating legislation? It must be huge! If this is what our money is to be used for then politicians are even more of a waste of space than I had hitherto thought!
Am I alone in feeling let down by the one sided reporting by the Scotsman reporter Jenny Haworth? She always laces her reports with quotes from FoE and Greenpeace and the likes - never a counter veiw is aired. LET'S HAVE SOME BALANCE! This is especially so since the overwhelming number of comments on such articles are sceptical of the global warming THEORY.

45

puskas,

East kilbride 06/12/2008 14:57:09
Has anyone had problems with some of their submissions.?

Heading into space for example-
46

puskas,

East kilbride 06/12/2008 15:03:13
No46 Mack1,

Grandstanding ... you must be jocking.

Leave that to PM Brown.. election time coming up if he feels he's been successful in his grandstanding.

World leader my ars*

Oil ...

we would still be a colonial power in Rhodesia if there were. Grandstanding as a reptile and no better than Mugabe.
47

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 06/12/2008 15:06:55
I don't know if EoE, Enemies of the Earthians, has a press office feeding "The Scotsman" now that they've taken over world governments. So what do we know.
48

JCA REID,

Annan 06/12/2008 15:12:06
All of this talk about reducing the CO2 footprint is simply a way for politicians to look good & tax folk more with nothing substantial to show for it. Any funds generated will simply be frittered away on other "policies & schemes". I agree with a previous comment upon doing what the Norwegians/others are doing - at least they are creating something!
however, a fairly simple aid to this 'problem' is the fact that the tree-line in Scotland is kept 1,000feet artificially LOW! A massive programme could be undertaken that is fairly inexpensive to grow a wide variety of tree: Scots Pine, Douglas Fir, Lodgepole Pine, Birch, certain Oaks etc. to soak up the CO2.
Of course there's no money in it for some folk.
49

Mr. Borat Sagdiyev,

Kuzcek, Kazakhstan 06/12/2008 17:58:33
A sad day for Scotland, it would appear that our freedoms are rapidly being eroded due to this passing political fad of so-called "Climate Change".

Do the brainboxes who blurted out this thoughtless "bill" have any plans in place to compensate the large percentage of people who will lose their jobs due to this ill-thought-out scheme? Also why is Aviation always made out to be the big bad boy with regards to Climate Change when it is such a small contributor?

Make no mistake this has nothing to do with the environment, this is merely the Snips making a feeble attempt to flex their muscles to make it look as though their glorified local council that is known as the Scottish "Government" is capable of making decisions that look big; a pro-independance statement of "we're ready to run our own country". Of course this is a load of old mince, as usual fom Eck and the Snips big talk but no substance, and the rest of us will have to suffer the consequences of their egoism, in losing our freedoms, our livelyhoods etc.

I wonder if Stewart Stevenson will be prepared to give up his Private Pilot's License in order to cut down his own emissions??? While you expect the rest of use to hand over our freedoms you seem strangely quiet about that one? Typical Snip of course.
50

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 06/12/2008 18:09:54
Unimpressed one

Why are you stalking me, you troll?

The only impressive about you is your rudeness and lack of sticking to the subject at hand in this thread - and many others.

Get out more in society and you might appear to be human and not sound like a raving lunatic.
51

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 06/12/2008 18:13:01
Unimpressed on

And the only thing I can detect smelling from you is a rotting, stinking "brain", if you even possess that.
52

T M,

LA, USA 06/12/2008 19:39:19
#54, 55

"Unimpressed One" asked you;

#32, Has Canadian snow declined then? Are your winters milder? Didn't think so. Haven't you noticed that just by bleating with the sheep doesn't mean you're right?

How is that not on the subject??? You responded with purely personal attacks. Typical of the looney left.

Man made global warming is BS. If the High Priest of this movement Al Gore really believed it was a problem, don't you think he would be using the internet (which he invented of course) to give his Global Warming lectures instead of flying all over the world to do it???
53

Club Player,

Aberdeen 06/12/2008 19:48:09
Spot on #27.

Scotland's coldest November/December for a long time, Scotland's worst recession for a long time. What's our response: bring out some meaningless targets that will do nothing but hammer our economy even more.
54

Beverly,

New York 06/12/2008 21:19:28
I'm old enough to remember the last climate scare, when I was a student in the early 1970s. Then, TIME magazine (US) ran a front-cover story titled "The Coming Ice Age."

Yup. They were all convinced, especially in the press, that we were all facing the next Ice Age in the near future. We were bombarded with a raft of scare stories, very similar to the current lot, about climate change.

But as more facts came in, the scaremongers quietly dropped it.

Now Alaska's ice shelf is increasing dramatically. You might have heard that it was greatly reduced last year; you probably Didn't hear that it's now more extensive than it's been in years.

I'm a conservationist, and I believe strongly that we need to wait until we have some FACTS to go by rather than rushing to tank our economies with ill-considered policies. Especially when the Third World nations, which are the worst polluters, aren't expected to follow suit.

In America, the US Senate voted almost Unanimously to reject the Kyoto Treaty because adhering to it would have destroyed our economy. They didn't think that was such a great idea. Nevertheless, the US has done Better at reducing emissions than nearly all the Kyoto signatories.

Just be smart about it, people. All the best!
55

Barbarac,

Boise Idaho USA 06/12/2008 22:16:47
In the 1950's the state of Georgia had orange orchards. They no longer grow in Georgia. The orange orchards have moved south to Florida. WHY because it has gotten to cold for the orange orchards in Georgia.
Now should the orange orchards move north to the state of Georgia then I will believe the climate change is warming.

56

Udith Fonseka,

Colombo Sri Lanka 06/12/2008 23:55:29
Every single road in Colombo,Kandy etc, all day has traffic like the Great Western Road at rush hour but you never hear about what this country should do or what Iran,South Africa,Kuwait,South Korea,Vietnam,Indonesia,Mexico,Saudi Arabia,Egypt or about 175 other countries should do. What is the corralation between the group of nations (about 25 countries) that are doing something and expected to do more and those that do little or nothing??
Just one example of the problem of the "175" is their price of petrol--what does petrol priced at 5p a litre do to driving habits in the Middle East.
57

One-man-bucket's older twin,

07/12/2008 01:44:01
You surely all realise, whether human behaviour is responsible for global warming or not, it's a heaven-sent opportunity for governments to tax us, and one they won't forgo in a hurry.

I'm sympathetic to envoriomental concerns, but would be more convinced if I'd ever met a strident green who wasn't better off than me. They seem to be able to afford for example, organic food, homes with land where they can grow their own, and expensive energy-saving home improvements. And of course, higher taxes on the non-renewable energy they do use.
58

StopTheNumpties,

from doing something really stupid this time 07/12/2008 01:56:25
"Dr David Reay is a climate change expert at the University of Edinburgh."

He most assuredly is not; he's charlatan. And if we impoverish Scotland on this fool's errand of being the "firstest" with the "stupidest" legislation, then Scotland really will be freezing in the dark, while the rest of the world prospers. Wanting there to be climate change so you can feel good about doing something is living in Numptyville. Wake-up already and get back to doing something productive.
59

StopTheNumpties,

vote them out 07/12/2008 02:07:39
As you are paying for this lark, remember that you, the consumer, is paying the bills. This carbon taxes, renewable fees, tax credits, aren't funded by the corporate targets - they get rolled on to your bill or the cost of your purchases. Do you really think the tobacco companies are paying the government levies on that pack of cigs? You are. All taxes are paid by the last fellow in line (you) and the Climate Change levies will be no different. Remember you are getting the best government YOUR money can buy. You are paying the freight for those clowns you, know.
60

Reiver,

Galashiels 07/12/2008 11:16:56
yawn ... less government, lower taxes, more social responsiblity ...

 

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.