Scotsman Letters: Is zero carbon’s aim really to ‘save the planet’?

The debate over global warming and dealing with builders have something in common. In both cases, we have to assess the claims of people who know much more than we do ourselves.

Are we hearing the real truth behind the claims of the scientists and others active in the climate debate?

With tradesmen, we manage to do it. There is no reason why the same can’t apply to the scientists and others active in the climate debate.

The Greens were prophesying doom and demanding that we live a much poorer life before global warming. The 1972 book Limits to Growth predicted worldwide famine, catastrophic environmental degradation and population collapse. The book was based on computer models developed at MIT, then as now one of the world’s top ten universities.

When the claims of Limits to Growth proved to be bunk, the Greens looked around for a new catastrophe to scare us with and settled on anthropogenic global warming. They and bandwagoning politicians repeatedly gave us deadlines to change our behaviour or catastrophe would ensue. Deadline after deadline passed and the world went on much as before.

So they changed the name from AGW to climate change. The beauty of the new name is that Greens can point to any weather that is an outlier from average and sagely claim it as evidence of climate change. The threat is so vague and general that it is not a scientific theory capable of testing.

We, who contribute only a very modest part of human carbon dioxide output, are to decarbonise our society, while the Chinese, the Indians and others build thousands of new coal-fired power stations.

The inevitable conclusion is that the purpose of ‘zero carbon’ is to effect revolutionary change in Western societies rather than to ‘save the planet.’

Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife

Farming practices

There is no doubt that Tim Flinn makes a number of valid points regarding some of the negative aspects of farming practices (Letters, April 22).

However, his dystopian view of modern agriculture, somewhat reminiscent of Rachael Carson's book Silent Spring, written in 1963, needs to be tempered with reality.

He draws particular attention to carbon losses resulting from traditional ploughing but omits to mention the positive news that in recent years minimum-tillage techniques (ie no ploughing) are addressing this issue, having increased by 63 per cent. This serves to enhance surface carbon sequestration and soil health while simultaneously reducing machinery emissions through a limited need for seedbed preparations. While UK agriculture is indeed responsible for 11 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, these have been reduced by 16 per cent through various means over the past 20 years and ongoing research seeks further reductions.

Unlike Mr Flinn, I do know of farmers who are also actively restoring hedgerows, woodlands and wetlands in an integrated manner that in time will be both pleasing to the eye while simultaneously nurturing wildlife as well as sustaining livelihoods both in agriculture and many ancillary industries.

It should not be forgotten that the industry currently supplies 76 per cent of our food which would have to be imported if certain misguided environmentalist had their way with mass reforestation, rewilding and livestock elimination.

Human-sourced emissions of CO2 are often portrayed as being a damaging pollutant but there is scant mention of the fact that the current higher concentration (414 parts per million) of this vital plant nutrient is also responsible for a resultant phenomenon called global greening which is significantly enhancing productivity of ecosystems (agricultural and natural) by some 30 per cent as evidenced by satellite monitoring.

Perhaps it is time to stop demonising carbon and be thankful that it is helping to feed the world and also to realise not only are 96 per cent of such emissions entirely natural in origin and that our climate is influenced by many more powerful forces of nature than a solitary component of the atmosphere.

Neil J Bryce, Kelso

Toxic regime

In September 2016, Nicola Sturgeon famously declared: “Independence is more important than Brexit, oil and balance sheets.” She also stated, “Independence transcends bread and butter issues.”

This was a clear indication that she had abandoned any economic case for a successful independent Scotland where Scots would be better off and she expected “the people of Scotland” to accept her vision for separation on a "let’s see how it works out” basis.

The majority of Scots did not fall for her immature, teenage politics but obviously SNP supporters felt that was a credible strategy. As we see from the events of the past few weeks and daily revelations, the regime since 2014 has been toxic, secretive and divisive and supporters appear to be happy with failure.

What is it that makes supporters of a political party with no proven case for economic, financial and defence success and with a hugely damaged, destructive history, continue to sustain the cause?

It is evident that Scottish independence politics is based on nothing more than emotion and the obscene gravy-train which SNP MPs and MSPs gain from, far from benefiting “the people of Scotland” is to the detriment of Scotland.

The new First Minister, as the “continuity candidate”, is hailing independence as the answer to all of Scotland’s problems – SNP-created problems – and as long as he does so Scotland will continue its decline.

Douglas Cowe, Newmachar, Aberdeenshire

Coronation query

With the upcoming coronation of King Charles there are available for purchase the usual biscuit tins, tea towels, tea mugs, a new portrait of the monarch for every school (that one's on the taxpayer), a “serious” biography and a helpful colouring book-style paperback in very simple language possibly meant for children, or perhaps the regular readers of tabloids.

The broadcast media are no doubt gearing up to give us wall-to-wall coverage of the costly enterprise and will undoubtedly be seeking vox pops from loyal subjects. It will be a useful distraction from the proxy war in Ukraine, soaring grocery and energy costs and no one will be invited to point out how very silly this is in the 21st century.

We will instead be treated to more letters and opinions that our monarchy is 'the envy of the world' and that the British Empire was the greatest known. This may be fairly disputed by the Italians, the Swedes, the Dutch, Portuguese and the Spanish, who gave up that gig hundreds of years ago, presumably recognising that it was better for their people to live in the present and prosper rather than reminiscing about raping and pillaging and asset-stripping other countries. Most of them have monarchies too, but they are not subsidised to the extent of the Windsor clan.

I have recently returned from Scandinavia where the people look prosperous and well-fed. There are no signs of endemic poverty. Yet even on the cruise ship on which I was a passenger, many of the British people looked like they had had very hard lives.We can see these faces, too, in Scottish cities.

And yet one English passenger had the temerity to suggest that it was ”the lack of productivity of British workers” that kept us from having the Scandinavian lifestyle. Seriously?

The so-called United Kingdom whose subjects were invited to clap for nurses during Covid is now taking the Royal College of Nursing to court. What is there to celebrate in this failed state? Scotland needs independence now more than ever.

Marjorie Ellis Thompson, Edinburgh

Deposit disaster

The Deposit Return Scheme is an ongoing financial disaster which will achieve nothing.

It is inconceivable that those who have signed up will have to start paying between £50,000 and £1.5 million a month from August despite the scheme being delayed until March1, 2024. (Your report, April 20)

The purpose of the DRS scheme was flawed from the beginning. The plan was to recycle more glass and plastic bottles and cans and reduce litter, but all 32 councils in Scotland already have excellent recycling facilities for bottles and cans so DRS was not needed.

It has been belatedly announced by the Greens’ Lorna Slater that hospitality premises which offer takeaway service will no longer need to operate a return point.

Well, nearly all of the litter comes from fast food outlets. It is consumed and then the drink container and food containers are thrown out of the car window. A 20p charge will not deter these idiots. What is needed are roadside cameras and £1,000 fines not the pending multi-million pound Slater-imposed disaster.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow

Who’s the boss?

Amid all the gloating over the departure of Dominic Raab from government, nowhere do I see the essential question being asked, "When is a boss a boss?", and should he or she never criticise those for whom he or she has responsibility on matters of performance quality, time-keeping, dress codes, etc.

Whether it be in business or politics, there has to be acceptance of the fact that the boss is ultimately responsible to his/her board of directors for the discharge of responsibility given to that boss.

We seem to breeding and mis-educating a generation in society who are so thin-skinned, they continually see criticism as "bullying". It is nothing of the sort. It is a necessary learning process for those criticised.

It seems to me that the Civil Service, whose members protested against Mr Raab, has been infected with the current wokeism trend, whereby no-one has personal responsibility for anything at all, and entitlement rules the workplace.

Derek Farmer, Anstruther

CalMac services

Rebecca McCurdy is behind the times (“Labour call for SNP to make amends with islanders for failure of ferries”, April 21); both CalMac’s Loch Seaforth and Caledonian Isles are very much in service.

Jane Ann Liston, St Andrews

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

Subscribe

Subscribe at www.scotsman.com/subscriptions