Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008

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.

Fears of climate change 'fudge'



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: 05 June 2008
THE Scottish Government has set itself the ambitious target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The much-anticipated Climate Change Bill will be crucial in reaching this goal.

Environmental pressure groups are worried the Scottish Government will "fudge" its efforts. They want Holyrood to commit to annual targets of 3 per cent emission reductions, rather than just an overall target of 80 per cent by 2050.

But one
environmental campaigner told me he is convinced the Scottish Government will not stick to its manifesto commitment to bring in annual emission reduction targets.

"I'm sure there will be a fudge," he said. "The civil servants advise them against annual targets because it creates a rod for their own back if they don't achieve them. But this is what we need. We need to make it painful for decision-makers not to do the right thing."

Other ways campaigners are concerned the Climate Change Bill could be a fudge is if emissions from aviation are not included, which is one possibility left open in the consultation document.

And there are worries the bill will only include cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent, excluding other harmful greenhouse gases such as methane, which is far more potent than .

Further concerns are that there will not be strong enough incentives to reach the targets unless there are tough sanctions. Some campaigning groups think there should be a climate fund set up, whereby departments that fail to meet their targets pay money into the fund to help achieve the ultimate reduction on time.

More than 20,000 people wrote to the Scottish Government in response to a consultation on the Climate Change Bill, which closed on 23 April.

This shows the level of interest and concern among the public. Over the next few months the Scottish Government will analyse the responses before putting together a draft bill.

The Scottish Government is aiming to introduce this to parliament by the end of this year.

This will be eagerly awaited by environment groups and the Scottish public, to see if the government fulfils its manifesto commitments.





The full article contains 360 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 June 2008 10:00 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Maisie from Morningside,

05/06/2008 00:53:14
Any Scottish government which proposes to introduce "tough measures" can expect to get voted out of office pretty quickly.
2

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 05/06/2008 05:00:15
And just who is this "environmental campaigner" and why doesn't Jenny Haworth name him? Would he embarrassed to be exposed as a one-issue environmental fanatic?
3

Douglas,

Bathgate 05/06/2008 07:20:06
More than 20,000 people may have written to the Scottish government, but what was the content of their communication?
For all we know from the article they could have been objecting to officials paying attention to self sustaining pressure groups.
4

an interested party,

05/06/2008 07:38:19
maybe some of the 20000 letters pointed out we are still in an ice age
5

eyeswider,

still cold 05/06/2008 07:53:54
"We need to make it painful for decision-makers not to do the right thing."

The right thing would be to spend good money on a years long campaign to expose the lies of the green left.

There is no "peak oil" because it self renews.
CO2 is life itself - we need loads more of it.
The world can support 20 billion caring people but less than 2 billion selfish tawts.
Al Gorebbels is a lying scumbag enriching himself at taxpayer expense.
There are far too many polar bears.
Nearly everything you have been taught is lies - to the point where mostly the opposite is true.
We should be preparing for decades of cold.

It's the sun, stupid.



6

Unimpressed one,

05/06/2008 08:21:11
Think this Ms Haworth seems pretty gullible. We're already hurting because of 'green' taxes so far that do absolutely nothing for the environment and everything for the Exchequer. A further raft of this stupity will see politicians voted out faster than Bliar could spin a lie.

Sane people are wakening up to the fact that green environmental groups are totally anti-society and seek only to cause individuals pain and suffering, much as communists governments inflicted on their own citizens. The niave are always ready to follow the loud-mouthed, but society as a whole will eventually reject their poisonous ranting and hopefully consign them all to the dustbin of failed ideologies.
7

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 05/06/2008 08:38:00
Off course there will be a fudge, these so called targets are totally meaningless any way as the emissions are impossible to measure.
This is nothing but a huge scam to relieve us of more of our money.
8

Melly,

Sussex 05/06/2008 08:50:16
How many million tons of CO2 do all the farting cows of the world create? Let`s get rid of them !!
9

Miss H,

05/06/2008 09:42:53
It is not clear why annual targets are necessary. If emmissions were reduced by 2 per cent one year and 4 per cent the next would that mean it would be judged a failure? Surely you cannot expect things to happen on a perfectly predictable path.

Maybe I'm wrong about that - there may be reasons why annual targets are necessary but what are those reasons?
10

Upandunder,

05/06/2008 11:15:20
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Easy to explain why: The Earth is a living thing.

The whole global warming nonsense is nothing but a "statist" left-wing plot to further tax the middle classes.

Instead of worrying about Gore's completely unproven claims, we should instead tackle REAL environmental issues like the destruction of the rainforests, the irresponsible use of food crops for biofuel, recycling and dumping of waste at sea.

I can see the headlines of 2028 now: "Amazon rainforest finally gone - while we spent 20 years worrying about carbon emissions"
11

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 11:26:32
Eyeswider #5- thats 9 innacuracies I can count in your post. Would you like to add some more?

Upanunder #11- no, the current climate change is due to us. The earth is not a "living thing", whatever that is, but a mesh of ecosystems and creatures. And the "unproven" claims are not being made by Gore, they are being made by scientists studying climate, on the back of century old calculations based on physics.

As for destruction of the rainforests, that is also linked to climate change:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/extreme-drought-in-the-amazon

If we prevent damage to the Amazon rainforest, we can help prevent dangerous climate change occuring.
12

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 11:26:43
#9:

Dave,

Methane is supposedly far more effective than CO2 at being a "greenhouse gas". Melly has a valid point.

All this buncum about climate change is total rubbish and is designed purely to make life more difficult and justify rediculously high taxes.
13

Upandunder,

05/06/2008 11:35:17
12 Guthrie, sorry, climate change is not due to us. It might be due to us - but it's not been proven. If this was a Scottish law criminal case and mankind was accused of causing climate change, the verdict, given receipt of ALL current evidence, would have to be "Not Proven".

Scientists are in dispute. Some say yes we are, others say no we're not.

Gordon Brown put a retrospective tax on domestic flights (£10 a time - not enough to stop people flying but an easy bit of cash for the Treasury). Now he wants to punish people for the Mondeo they bought five years ago.

FACT: The green issue is a convenient way to tax, tax, tax.

14

Melly,

Sussex 05/06/2008 13:35:16
#9 Sorry Dave from Barra of course you are correct and I do kinow that, don`t know what I was on when I wrote that. Comment still applies though.
15

Geomac 1,

Scotland 05/06/2008 15:14:29
The mysterious environmental campaigner says "I'm sure there will be a fudge," he said. "The civil servants advise them against annual targets because it creates a rod for their own back if they don't achieve them."
Of course the civil service advises against them so as to prevent annual embarrassment when they fail to meet them. A target for some 40 years hence is just fine for politicians as it's unlikely that any will be around when failure inevitable looms!!
16

Geomac 1,

Kinross 05/06/2008 15:15:19
#8 Melly. Since when did farting cows produce CO2??? Unless by CO2 you mean methane??
17

Melly,

Sussex 05/06/2008 16:38:31
#19 Geomac 1. I`ve already been chided for my CO2 emission, see my post 16 - I know it`s methane !!!!!! just got carried away by the CO2 lobby I guess. I declare to the world my momentary lapse of gas selection.
18

,

05/06/2008 16:50:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Neil,

Glasgow 05/06/2008 17:43:53
Setting a target for 2050 is merely a way of scoring points while having to make no real choices. Perhaps we will see the SNP promising to end all crime by 2075 or achieve an Irish level of growth shortly after independence.

If anybody wishes to send me a fiver I will promise to send them the Brooklyn Bridge in 2100.
20

Waspy100,

05/06/2008 19:57:38
#21
What does your psychiatrist say to that?
21

Waspy100,

05/06/2008 20:03:01
Some say mibee yes, some say mibee no.
Could be a natural thing or could be man made.
Till we can say for certain one way or t'other we should all keep an open mind not accusing anyone who does not agree of talking rubbish
Like half the posters on this thread
22

Unimpressed one,

05/06/2008 20:35:22
#12, Guthrie, your ignorance of the real world is truly astounding. The demise of rain forests has absolutely nothing to do with 'climate change' fantasy but everything to do with human exploitation. Please refrain from posting rubbish that even a child could correct.
23

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 22:17:43
Unimpressed #25- ohh, more assertion without any evidence.
Anyway, I linked to a Greenpeace article referencing the LBA, which is:
"The Large-scale Biosphere Atmosphere Experiment in Amazônia (LBA) is the largest program of international scientific cooperation to be focused on the Amazon region. It is the largest global change science project to ever have taken place in Brazil, where the majority of the research is focused. It is an environmental science experiment focused on understanding the role of the Amazon in global environmental change, including how land-use affects global change and how global environmental change affects the region."

So, I'm sure you should be ringing up people at the LBA and complaining.

Anyway, we all know about Amazonian exploitation, the problem being that only environmentalists seem to be bothered about it.

Upanunder #14- nope, you have no evidence. Please stop making unsubstantiated claims. As for tax, everything is worth taxing, and taxing something frequently has nothing to do with the environment.
24

Rachel Young,

06/06/2008 09:11:10
#10 Miss H - The 2050 target is an important goal but, in order for it to be meaningful, it must be matched by a commitment to year-on-year reductions.

With a Parliamentary cycle of under 4 years, longer term targets risks avoiding accountability and simply shifting responsibility for any failure to make adequate progress into the subsequent Government.

Long term targets mean there is a risk of inaction in early years and delays in making early progress in working towards the 80% cut.

If a 3% reduction in any one year is not reached, the ability to make up this shortfall in the following years becomes more and more challenging – i.e. two years of delivering just 1.5% and 2.5% reductions will mean the third year is challenged to meet a 5% reduction. Without a 3% minimum annual reduction there is a real risk that the challenge spirals out of reach, in doing so undermining the long-term confidence needed to deliver the Bill.

The Government claims about uncertainity (from cold winters or whatever) are nonsense. If the EU ETS is properly integrated into Scottish targets, the potential variability from that sector (which includes all major point sources such as power stations) becomes irrelevant.

 

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.