Climate changing
More on what SNP Ministers will and won’t do. Mutterings of discontent tonight over the proposed Scottish climate change bill.
Environmental campaigners like the objective of curbing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
They are, however, less impressed by the fact that the SNP manifesto promise of three per cent annual mandatory carbon cuts has been shelved.
John Swinney insisted that the target was equivalent to three per cent per year. There would be annual monitoring. But he would consult on targets based on average reductions over a five year period.
Executive insiders say that is to allow for peaks (and, presumably, troughs). The Greens – who entered a co-operation agreement with the SNP – say they’re disappointed.
Friends of the Earth welcome the announcement, urge early legislative action – but warn that the change in tack could generate slippage.
Mr Swinney says the legislation puts Scotland in the lead in this field. However, he acknowledges that there may be differences over the detail. I suspect he may be right.
I'm 
Comments
Per annum or not per annum. The same arguments are being presented in Wales. Opponents of the three % pa argue that there are too many variables e.g Port Talbot contributes a substantial slice of Wales's CO2 emissions and so a closed down furnace reduces emissions, additional production increases it. Another is the length and severity of cold snaps and so it goes on. The reasoning is that measuring over a period of 5 years evens such things out and therefore gives a better measure of progress.
Its consequence is that it allows governments to avoid unpopular restrictions while reducing the scope to criticise the governing party.
Presumably advocates of 3% pa are not pressing for a simple measure of total emissions per year but rather for a factored net reduction of 3% pa. These factors would iron out the effects of exceptionally mild or severe winters, and other matters such as closed power stations or steelworks or aluminium plants and so on in order to get at the underlying trend and therefore make it easier and appropriate to hold lagging governing parties to account.
Five year periods let Ministers off the hook. After all by then it will be someone else's job.
How similar are the arguments in Scotland and how will you press for the commitment for a factored 3% reduction pa?
Yes Brian, low carbon in terms of a nation energy needs will only be meet with the substantial aid of nuclear,"I'LL TELL YOU WHAT BUT;I LIKE THIS HONEST MODE,THE REALISIM OF GOVERNMENT IS MORE COMPLEX THAN THE POLITICS OF OPPOSITION"Brian did G.B.try to corner the S.N.P. with a proposed deal with the lib/dems in westminster today?that just didn't sound consensually friendly at'all???
To the disppointment of several in Westminster, Mr Swinney avoided the Contraction and Convergence [C&C] reference framework from which the SNP's emissions control figure of 80% off by 2050 was derived.
He was tackled about this by Green MSP Patrick Harvie, not least because a 'proud' commitment to C&C is in the SNP manifesto, along with those of the Welsh Nationalists, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens where the proposal originated. Since the Greens convene the Climate Committee and the SNP's accession was dependent on the Green's swing vote, forthcoming debates in committee will doubtless embrace this defining issue of C&C.
Climate Change is, as Mr Swinney stressed, a global problem requiring a global solution and this was the reason for his party's commitment to C&C.
A DVD commissioned by the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change presenting Contraction and Convergence has been distributed to all UK MPs and Peers. It is endorsed by numerous eminent spokespersons who are interviewed at length on the DVD.
Copies of the DVD can be obtained by written request to GCI aubrey.meyer [at] btinternet.com
Alternatively, as a large file [overnight download] interview material is retrievable at this link: -
The DVD also includes a heuristic animation of Contraction and Convergence for a risk analysis of different rates of sink-failure endorsed by prominent industry persons. This is a large file [overnight download] and is retrievable at this link:
A context animation the arguments, presented at the Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA] international conference in Venice last October, is here: -
or
/staticarchive/3b5ec85438ddef7ccc50f81763fb9c0eeb418a66.swf
[Note: - touch buttons to advances *within* scenes and touch logos to advance *between* scenes].
GCI’s definition statement for C&C is here: -
General referencing for the C&C provenance is here: -
A concept/context map of C&C comparing three rates of change for
[a] Contraction and Concentrations
[b] Contraction and Convergence
[c] Benefits of Growth versus Damages from Climate
[d] Contraction and Conversion
is here: -
References, supplementary material and reasoned argument??!! What happened to the fine blog/commenter tradition of rabid nonsense? Aubrey, you're putting us all to shame. ;-)
Well done!
I seem to be in a small minority of people who are not persuaded by the argument that CO2 is driving climate change. It is accepted that CO2 and climate change are related. There is a body of evidence, however, to indicate that CO2 DOES NOT LEAD climate change, but is LED BY climate change, and lags behind by several hundred years.
I am also of the opinion that if mankind was to cease producing CO2 immediately, this would have little or no impact on any current climate trend. Why?
1)Because natural sources of CO2 produce several times the amount mankind produces.
2) INERTIA. The amount of CO2 humans have been producing has been climbing ever more rapidly since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. What we do now will take quite some time to have ANY impact on the climate, if any at all.(By the way, exactly what DID happen to the "mini ice-age" all the doom-mongers were predicting back in the 1970's?)
What we should be concentrating on are REAL pollutants, all the other toxic chemicals we churn out. The CO2 issue is simply a convenient THEORY which allows governments to tax the living daylights out of us in the short term, and gives so called celebrities an air of planet saving heroes by bumbling about in a Toy*** 'Pious'. And it gives a 'dedicated' group of scientists guaranteed funding too!
Yes, we need to clean up our environment. Yes, we need to conserve our resources, but let's do it for all the RIGHT reasons, and not the wrong one.
Again we see examples of the UK being driven by our PC ecology branch, the Politically Correct Carbon branch; I do not suggest for a moment that action is not required on carbon emissions but I do think we are being driven by our politicians and our PCC brigade to appear to do as most converts do, to be seen to be going that extra mile.
Our Prime Minister now seems more interested in his legacy than his country; where before he was always willing to be seen to fighting Britain’s corner he has increasingly chosen the high profile leading roles in selective PC campaigns.
We need our Governments to legislate sensibly and prudently; we must not be disadvantaged either by direct and indirect taxation nor should our remaining industries be unfairly shackled such that increasing numbers of cheaper imports are delivered to our high streets, creating even more global warming and subsequently fewer British industries.
We require sensible policies, we equally require all industrial countries to do their bit; all countries are now experiencing the realities of weather extremes, such extremes have even been seen to move George W Bush in the right direction.
We must accept that policies will require modification from time to time unless some brilliant individual can devise the perfect sensible solution to which all countries will conform.
We must not expect politicians to follow policies verbatim where these policies which seemed correct when first formulated later proved wanting; we must congratulate politicians when they admit their policies require modification.
The PCC branch will always push for upper limits in legislative policy; our politicians at Holyrood and Westminster must find the most sensible levels for our future legislation.
I'm delighted John Swinney hasn't tied the hands of business to meet these targets. Although I'm still worried about where this bill might end up.
Unfortunately this bandwagon has already enthused the zealots to call for disproportionate measures that are economically damaging. A look at the UK's ouput of CO2 relative to the world and then the world's in relation to natural fluctuations should give us a sense of proportion.
Here we go again. Scotland's contribution to global warming is LESS that 2%. If Scots went "green" tomorrow, the planet would barely notice. Don't be fooled, the climate has been changing for millions of years and this is just the latest phase. Aye, humanity MAY have had a small part to play but the SCIENTIFIC evidence points to solar activity over which we have absolutely no control. So stop all this nonsense about climate change, it's here to stay and anything we do will be so insignifivant as to be a complete waste of time. And also see the news that China is now the biggest polluter, overtaking the USA for the first time. So if all you "Greens" are so exercised by the "problem", may I suggest that you book a flight....oops sorry, get on your bikes and head for Beijing or Washington ASAP, and start persuading the big boys to cut their CO2 outputs. And while your at it, bring back some evidence of the problems associated with methane production and a solution to how we deal with this as methane emission is more harmful that CO2 emission.
Thank you
And here I thought the Beeb didn't allow advertising.....
If,as all the so called *experts* say, "that what we are doing today is the cause of *climate change*", what then caused the climate to change many thousands of years ago causing the "Ice Age" to disappear and create all the hills and glens that are enjoyed by so many today?.I have yet to hear someone explain that one!!!
How do you measure a 3% reduction?
I agree we should be the world leaders in clean energy and am excited at the prospects of the Scottish parliament getting behing it 'im all for a comunity grant scheme' where groups can get together and share geothermal systems etc. with a 50% cost share then I believe there are many who would buy into these schemes knowing that in the long term there is financial and environmental benifit. Dont spend all the public purse on measurement techniques lets concentrate on the obvious stuff.
It is true to say that this is a global issue and our voice should be heard globaly. The focus needs to be on nations that are rapidly increacing their carbon footprint'China' for example if we can change one power station from being built as coal fired to perhaps Hydro or something then that would probably be equivalent of a 3% emmisions reduction in Scotland on a global measure. Would this count as 3% for that year. Or perhaps a reduction in North Sea Oil Production although economically damaging could also count as 3% who knows.
I want to forget about statistics and focus on achievements.
Our man Alex is quite right to put off the rail link for Edinburgh - we have just had an overspend of $400M for the Perth to Mandurah rail line in WA - unions on a go slow don't help either !!!
Mr Samond has good qualities, but he is the ultimate band-wagon jumper, tapping into whatever populist policy seems best. A climate change target will be good for Scotland, but why oppose the trams and rail link? He says he supports fishermen, but all the evidence suggests that painful short term measures to limit catches are needed to secure the industry's future. Leadership is needed on all these environmental issues.
Oh, for the record, what happens in Scotland/UK does matter to the rest of the world. Politicians all borrow ideas and policies from each other, and evyrbody is watching. Think of Ireland's smoking ban...
Brian Mudi(5),
"1)Because natural sources of CO2 produce several times the amount mankind produces.
2) INERTIA. The amount of CO2 humans have been producing has been climbing ever more rapidly since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. What we do now will take quite some time to have ANY impact on the climate, if any at all."
1. "natural" sources are exactly balanced by "natural" sinks. Human sources aren't. This is why the data show increases since the dawn of the industrial age.
2. Too true! We have already bought and paid for considerable climate change. Is that a reason not to stop buying more?
Slainte
ed
2.
[Reply to Ian]
'If,as all the so called *experts* say, "that what we are doing today is the cause of *climate change*", what then caused the climate to change many thousands of years ago causing the "Ice Age" to disappear and create all the hills and glens that are enjoyed by so many today?.I have yet to hear someone explain that one!!!'
The explanation is pretty simple- in the past climate change was driven by natural forces- changes to incoming solar hear, natural changes to the distance of the earth from the sun and its angle of tilt.
The key distinction with current and predicted human-induced climate change is preciesly that- human induced. The changes are going way beyond what is expected from natural cycles, and are happening much faster.
[Reply to S.Beaton]
The evidence does not point to solar activity being the major cause of climate change today- see the IPCC 4th assessment if you don't believe me. The models factor in natural changes, and they are not sufficient to explain changes.
In the past, rising temperatures did indeed lead to greater CO2- a warmer world releases carbon locked up in soils and oceans. But that is explicitly not the driver at present.
The interesting twist arises if we leave emissions to rise unchecked- then you would be right. Massive emissions lead to large changes in temperature which, if high enough, do indeed lead to emissions from oceans, soils etc. This is the well known 'positive feedback' effect.
Ian MacLean of Skye stated:
"If,as all the so called *experts* say, "that what we are doing today is the cause of *climate change*", what then caused the climate to change many thousands of years ago causing the "Ice Age" to disappear and create all the hills and glens that are enjoyed by so many today?.I have yet to hear someone explain that one!!!"
If he bothered to spend a bit of time reading what the "so called *experts*" (i.e. the most eminent and qualified people in the planet on the subject) say then he would get the explanation that he doesn't seem to want to hear. It really is frightening and depressing the way some people are happy to question expert opinion without spending any time investigating the subject themselves.
On the basis of what the scientists say it does seem that the worls environment, and maybe future is at risk.
Against this potentially catastrophic background it is somewhat difficult not to conclude that not a penny of Gordon Brown's so called environmental taxation will find its way towards reducing our C02 footprint - as there seems to be no real commitment to reducing our C02 outputs.
Diesel is some 30% more C02 efficient than petrol yet Gordon Brown's treauary has imposed taxation that make it more expensive per litre than petrol!
Not disimilarly the taxation of LNG for cars has been increased significantly over recent years and the grants for vehicle conversion effectively withdrawn.
Similarly there is no real commitment by treasury to support energy efficent heating systems such as ground source heat pumps, solar heating, micro generation and other such green energy technolgies.
'Pump priming' as opposed to rhetoric and tokenism by HM treasury could push these technolgies forward - but unfortunately it seems all about taxation and then some more again.
By way of example it would not be unreasonable to say that our Gordon's treaury will not hypothecate one penny of the recently increased airfare tax to reduce our C02 footprint. Rather it is more likely that pigs will fly!
No - Gordon Brown's chancellorship has been all about big tax, lots of rhetoric, lots of big government, but no real environmental results.
So let us not worry too much - its all about taxation and tommorows future is not the present days concern - sadly.
At least we are energy efficient in Iraq!
Willie
What utter nonesense. Being so insignificantly small, anything that Scotland does or does not do will have no effect whatsoever in global terms, a fact which John Swinney himself appears to concede.
Quite why Scotland's businesses and taxpayers should be saddled with the financial burden of disroportionately high cuts escapes me.
One can anly assume, therefore, that this is the payback for the stone agers' support in the assembly.
Hmmm... With global demand for oil rising by 2m bbl/day per annum and depletion running at 5m bbl/day per annum I think the real effort should be working out where we get the equivalent of 7m bbl/day per annum from..
[Reply to Bob Reid]
'What utter nonesense. Being so insignificantly small, anything that Scotland does or does not do will have no effect whatsoever in global terms, a fact which John Swinney himself appears to concede.
Quite why Scotland's businesses and taxpayers should be saddled with the financial burden of disroportionately high cuts escapes me.
One can anly assume, therefore, that this is the payback for the stone agers' support in the assembly.'
Three reasons to take action:-
(1) Per head, Scotland's emissions are 5-10 times that of other countries, and it's us in advanced economies that have emitted the vast majority of greenhouse gases in the past. I simply think that no moral person can respond 'so what' when the world's poorest are harmed by our actions
(2) The world is looking for ways to innovate and reduce emissions, whilst preserving economies. Therefore Scotland has an opportunity with its enormous renewable energy reserves to take that lead, and show the way for the really big emitters of the future- India, China, Brazil...
(3) In being such a leader, the market opportunities for scottish business- solar, wind, carbon capture, biofuels etc- are enormous.
The evidence suggests that with proper planning, cutting climate changing emissions can have a net economic benefit for those that move furthest and fastest.
For the large amount of emissions regulation that is being proposed is it worth it for all the Scottish jobs and foreign/global investment that will be lost to compensate for all of this bureaucracy? Gina.
Reply to Alan Croal.
I have spent a{albeit little}time reading some *expert* opinion and quite a few of these guys cannot even agree with each other. Surely in any debate it is in the public interest for the opinions of all to be questioned?. Or is it the fact these days that if you`re considered as an "eminent and qualified person" you should not get questioned?
#17
"Quite why Scotland's businesses and taxpayers should be saddled with the financial burden of disroportionately high cuts escapes me."
If ours will not, then why should anyone elses?
I hate this argument. Somehow because we are not the biggest contributors we should do nothing; others should do it!
It is frustrating to see this shirking attitude come up time and again.
I was surprised to see the SNP refusing to enter into discussions about the possibility of disposing of our high level waste deep underground, citing that it was possibly better to wait and see if another solution presents itself in the next 50 to 100 years.
Given some of the worst case scenarios we see predicted as a result of climate change, we may not have that luxury of time.
So is it wise to have this stuff lying about on the surface in rotting containers when we may no longer have the resources or ability to do anything else with it?
If we sink it now, then at least we have the ability to bring it back up and dispose of it properly, if such an opportunity presents itself.
[Reply to Gina P]
'For the large amount of emissions regulation that is being proposed is it worth it for all the Scottish jobs and foreign/global investment that will be lost to compensate for all of this bureaucracy? Gina.'
The costs of regulation will be a very small part of the total cost of reducing emissions and adapting to climate change...
The costs of action itself is vastly outweighed by the costs of non-action- see the Stern report for the details. Or look at just one example- the costs of adapting to flooding after the event, rather than tackling now the climate changing emissions that lead to more flooding .
For every sector badly affected by controls on carbon emissions, there will be others- bio-fuels, solar, wind, marine, tidal, carbon capture etc- that could create great wealth for Scotland.
There is no evidence that stronger regulation on climate change will lead to a significant loss of investment or jobs- quite the opposite in fact.