Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 14th October 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.

Ten simple ways we can all help save the planet



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: 09 January 2008
THE Scotsman joins forces with Natural Scotland on a campaign to promote greener lifestyles. Click below if you want to join in.


There i
s a need to change the way we live in order to fulfil the requirements of the fight against climate change. Scientists and politicians across the world are in almost unanimous agreement that the time for argument is over.

Unless humanity takes steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the world will be hit by famine, drought, floods, storms of increasing intensity and rising sea levels. How bad this will be and when it will strike may be uncertain, but a worst-case scenario would result in vast tracts of the planet becoming uninhabitable, prompting mass migrations towards the poles and wars over territory.


Many climate scientists believe we have about ten years to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions or face dangerous global warming as the planet's average temperature rises 2C above the pre-industrial figure.

The new campaign centres around ten pledges designed to help people get involved in reducing their carbon emissions: advertisements for the campaign appear throughout today's newspaper.

The Scotsman is working with the Scottish Government to push the message in forthcoming weeks. Stories will appear under the campaign logo "Let's Go Green Together", because there is a vital third party in this initiative – the people of Scotland.

The campaign asks as many people as possible to adopt some or all of the ten pledges printed on this page.

Together, enough of us can make a difference – one person recycling a glass bottle would save the energy required to power a television for an hour and a half.

BY ITSELF, that would be insignificant in the fight against climate change, but it is estimated that if every person in the country joined in the campaign, we could cut our energy use by as much as 40 per cent.

The Scotsman and the Scottish Government have set up websites to record people's pledges to join the campaign. These names will be printed in The Scotsman over the coming months.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said: "Climate change is a challenge for us all. Here in Scotland, we have an abundance of natural resources and massive renewable energy potential.

"We have a vast future as a green energy powerhouse for Europe, and we must now think big about how to bring it into being.

"At the same time, however, we each have an individual role to play. The decisions we make in our daily lives have a significance that should not be underestimated, and I'd encourage everyone to make one or more pledges in 2008."

Today, The Scotsman's masthead is printed in green – only the second time in its history it has been changed in support of a campaign – the other was publication of The Scotswoman in the 1990s. Mike Gilson, the Editor, said: "I think many people now believe we need to take steps to address the threat posed by global warming but are uncertain about what to do, how they can really make a difference.

"The ten pledges provide a manifesto for change that we can all at least aspire to. Some are harder than others, but if everyone in Scotland was to fulfil at least one pledge, that would make a real difference.

"The important thing is for everyone to try, to do their best, and no-one should be put off if they feel able to do only a few of the pledges.

"There may be some people who are doing all of them already, but the Scottish Government should be praised for promoting them in an attempt to make this a real mass movement."

He went on: "The change of our masthead's colour is a sign of how seriously this newspaper takes this issue. It is time for the people of Scotland to pull together and say with one voice 'Let's go green'."

Global warming might seem a distant threat to some in Scotland, but today we highlight the plight of the Cook Islands in the South Pacific, where there have been dramatic increases in storms and hurricanes, associated with rising sea temperatures.

PEOPLE there fear islands will become uninhabitable, and last month's United Nations climate change conference in Bali heard the country's representative speak movingly to the assembled world delegates, saying the islanders were "asking for our survival, nothing more, nothing less".

The Cook Islands may be among the first to experience what climate change will bring, and should serve as a warning to the world.

Robin Harper, the Scottish Green MSP, said the world could not wait for governments to solve the problem, but "people power" could make a real difference almost immediately.

"If we wait for governments, it will be too slow," he said "But there are things we can do tomorrow. We could reduce our energy consumption by 40 per cent tomorrow by simply going down the route the government is suggesting. All we need individually is the will to do it."

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "It is a positive initiative and the government has got to put the sort of effort behind this that it has previously put behind health information campaigns."

Dan Barlow, WWF Scotland's acting director, said: "In Scotland, we use resources and generate pollution as if we had three planets. Given our large ecological footprint and the growing impacts of climate change, there can be no doubt about the scale of the challenge we face and the urgent need for action."

1. Recycle household waste using facilities provided locally.

THE average person in Scotland throws away their own body weight in waste every seven weeks.

The present "throwaway" society means energy and resources must be expended to replace what we get rid of or fail to use.

More than £800 million of food is simply wasted in Scotland each year.

Stopping this would result in a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to taking one in four cars off the road.

But even small actions can have a surprisingly large effect – recycling a single glass bottle saves enough energy to power a television for an hour and a half.

It takes only 25 recycled two-litre plastic bottles to make a fleece jacket.

Three-quarters of Scottish homes have access to kerbside recycling, while facilities are now available at most supermarkets, council refuse centres and other locations, providing ample opportunities to do the right thing. wasteawarescotland.org.uk www.sort-it.org.uk

2. Turn the tap off when brushing your teeth.

THE concentration of the population in the Central Belt means most rain does not fall in the areas where water is in most demand.

It is not always possible to move water to the places where it is needed, and doing so takes energy and can damage the environment.

A tap that drips once a second will waste 33 litres of water a day, and over the course of a year would have provided enough water for 446 showers. One of the easiest ways to save water is to get out of the habit of leaving the tap running while brushing your teeth. Putting a plug in, rather than leaving taps running, is another simple step.

Other tips include fitting a water-saving device to the toilet, showers instead of baths and running washing machines and dishwashers with a full load only. Using a watering can for plants and a bucket to wash the car is more efficient than a hose. www.scottishwater.co.uk

3. Switch to using energy-saving light bulbs

LOW-ENERGY light bulbs last up to 15 times longer than standard bulbs and save up to £9 in electricity a year.

Increasing energy efficiency is seen as one of the simplest and most effective ways of cutting our impact on the planet.

If every house in Scotland installed one extra energy-efficient light, the electricity saved could power 23,000 homes for a year.

It is thought that about 30 per cent of people have no energy efficient bulbs in their home.

Traditional bulbs translate just five per cent of incoming energy into light, with much of the rest turned into heat.

However, those resistant to low-energy alternatives will soon have no alternative. Europe, the US and China are all expected to ban incandescents in the next few years.

ban-the-bulb.blogspot.com

www.energysavingtrust.org.uk

4. Leave the car at home at least once a week and cycle, walk, share a car or use public transport more often.

CARS and other vehicles are responsible for nearly a fifth of Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions.

They are expensive – car ownership costs on average £2,200 a year – and emit other gases that affect air quality and health. Nearly half of car journeys are under three miles and, in cities, cycling can be as quick. Taking the bus or train will also reduce emissions compared to driving alone in a car.

Sharing a car, using park-and-ride services and choosing a vehicle with good fuel efficiency are ways of reducing the impact of car journeys.

Regular servicing, not leaving the engine idling too long and driving at a sensible speed, avoiding hard accelerating and braking, also help.

www.sustrans.org.uk
www.travelinescotland.com
www.transportdirect.info

5. Use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones.

BATTERIES contain heavy metals which can leak out, causing pollution of the soil and water if they are simply thrown away.

The number of batteries we consume is staggering. Scotland alone uses around 41 million batteries a year, while the figure for the UK is more than 600 million.

Traditional batteries are designed for relatively short-term use and have been thrown away in vast quantities in the past. But even after they are run down, they contain valuable chemicals and metal which could be reused.

A policy of only using rechargeable batteries would dramatically cut such waste and be substantially cheaper.

Scotland recently opened a battery recycling plant in Golspie designed to take lithium-ion batteries, which are rechargeable and used mainly in modern portable devices such as mobile phones. Last year, some 13 tonnes of batteries was recycled.

www.sort-it.org.uk

6. Reuse carrier bags when you shop

THE waste of plastic bags has become a cause célèbre within the environmental movement.

The average time a plastic carrier bag is used has been estimated at just 12 minutes, but a typical bag could last several hundred years.

Plastic bags are a major component of household waste and the average home in Scotland produces just over a tonne a year, a figure that is increasing by about two per cent annually.

One of the simplest ways to cut the amount of waste you produce is to reuse old carriers, get a "bag for life" or a traditional shopping bag, or use a rucksack, rather than picking up several new carrier bags for every trip, only to throw them away at home.

adoptabeach.org.uk
abolishplasticbags.org.uk
carbontrust.co.uk

7. Buy more seasonal and unpackaged food

BUYING food out of season means more carbon emissions will have been created in its production or transportation from a favourable climate.

Locally grown fresh vegetables and fruit should have lost fewer of their nutrients than those stored in transit for a longer time.

Excess packaging adds to waste and makes up a significant proportion of rubbish sent to landfill. Avoiding convenience foods that have lots of packaging and buying loose fruit and vegetables can reduce this.

www.fifediet. wordpress.com/flying

wwwscotlandsfootprint.org

8. Hang your washing up to dry rather than using a tumbler dryer

NOT long ago in Scotland, it was rare to find a tumble drier in someone's home.

Today they are among the main household appliances, each year, consuming £1.3 billion-worth of electricity and responsible for more than five million tonnes of carbon dioxide in the UK.

Use a washing line or drying room or, if you must buy a tumble drier, choose one with the Energy Saving Recommended logo, which means it uses less energy, produces fewer emissions and is cheaper to run.

www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/flying

9. Organise or volunteer in an environmental project in your local community.

THIS may sound daunting, but volunteering to do something practical to help the environment can be immensely rewarding.

Carrying out physical work outside is a good way to get fitter. It is also an opportunity to learn more about nature and

can give a sense of satisfaction that you have done something meaningful, helping to repair damage to the land caused by today's society.

Volunteering is also more relaxed than paid workplaces and offers an opportunity to meet like-minded people with an interest in a similar area and learn new skills.

It is thought about 23,340 people currently carry out environmental volunteering in Scotland, completing about 91,000 hours of work a month.

www2.btcv.org.uk/flying
www.scotlink.org/flying
www.csv.org.uk/flying
www.chooseclimate.org/flying

10. Pay back the environmental impact of any flights you take and choose not to fly when there's a suitable alternative.

FLYING from Edinburgh to London creates nearly five times more emissions per passenger than taking the train.

The train journey takes four to five hours while, on paper, the plane will take about an hour. But depending where you live, trains become much more competitive on time, as they take passengers from city centre to city centre and there is no need to arrive more than an hour before take-off.

Taking one less long-haul flight a year could reduce your "ecological footprint" by up to 25 per cent. Off-setting carbon emissions has proved controversial, but the UK government and the United Nations have schemes to ensure firms offering this service honour their pledges and environmentalists generally say this is advisable if flying is essential.

www.chooseclimate.org/flying

HOW TO TAKE PART

ANYONE wanting to take part in the campaign can do so simply by trying to meet as many of the pledges as they can.

But The Scotsman and the Scottish Government are both asking people to sign up online.

This gives an idea how many people are taking part and which of the ten pledges prove popular and which attract less interest.

Those taking part can also explain why they want to join the fight against climate change .

This should help the government change policies to make it easier to go green and the newspaper to highlight issues of concern.

Simply log on to the sites below and follow instructions

www.scotsman.com/gogreen
www.infoscotland.com/ourfuture





The full article contains 2476 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 January 2008 7:00 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Greener Scotland
 
1

TommyKaye,

UK 09/01/2008 00:19:49
Has that Wendy Alexander been questioned yet?
2

lush,

Planet earth 09/01/2008 00:31:47
HaHa what alot of rubbish!
3

lush,

09/01/2008 00:40:27
Whatever advice this article provides, it is negated by the fact China fires up a new coal fired powered station every day. I’m fed up with this environmental rubbish that politicians and celebrities are selling to the public. Put in simple words if you want to stop global warming, you have to tackle the developing nations of India and China. Also why should we the developing world deny these countries the right to develop, we polluted the world much worse during the industrial age? I despise this new environmental cause because it’s being abused by self promoting groups such as Al Gore.
4

Dr Coles,

USA 09/01/2008 00:41:09
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
5

,

09/01/2008 00:41:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

,

09/01/2008 00:42:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Rabster,

09/01/2008 01:11:58
Lush - so just because we can't easily do anything about India and China we should just not bother doing anything ourselves? In the same way that we can't stop other people dropping litter or shoplifting so we might we well all just do it? Why not just try turning off the tap when you brush your teeth or recycling your bottles once in a while, maybe the warm glow that you get inside from making a contribution might stop you from being such a cynic.
8

lush,

09/01/2008 01:35:36
Well Rabster I never said we cant easily do anything about India and China, we can! Our Government can help promote alternative energy in countries such as India and China. However being realistic only nuclear energy can meet both the amount of power required and the environmental quotas. We can also promote through dialogue the improvement of recycling in these developing countries.
Most of the public in the developing world dont really care about global warming, they are driven by this image that its cool to support environmental issues. Its almost become a fad to support environmental groups and its now being abused by the politicians to improve their electoral vote. Is that a genuine attempt to change the environmental issues of the world!, I dont thik so just another way to con the public into voting them into power.
Finally just because I highlighted the real issues in the environmental debate there is no need to make your argument personal, rabster. I do attempt to recycle when possible and turn the tap off however I live in the real world and I realise that we will lose the battle unless we engage the developing world in open environmental dialogue.
9

Navvy,

wet water 09/01/2008 01:59:03
Scottish Water is a hopless organisation. We pay thrice, first for water in a way which is totally disconnected from the quantity used and again in two different ways for waste water also totally unconnected to the quantity used.

I have investigated the installation of a water meter and the economics are totally daft and there is no advantage in so doing. If i leave a tap running all the time there is no additional cost.

These measures should, where possible, and with water it is possible, link altruism with a cost benefit.

PS I know from living with a water meter how much water I use and have done the Scottish Water sums.

As for the low energy light bulbs, the packaging makes it very difficult to decide what size to buy. There needs, for some years, to be a direct comparison with the current wattage system. Also why are they all so harsh, wher are the warm whites? Today's papers mention disposal and clearing the room for 15 minutes before cleaning up a broken one -NOT with a vacuum- because of the poisonour mercury contained therein. Seems we will be saving the plenet withone hand and getting heavy metal poisoned with the other
10

Navvy,

09/01/2008 02:04:01
What needs to be done in China which has run out of clean water, and India and Scotland too is to have fewer people. No growth. With a declining population you can still satisfy rising expectations without growth. Scotland's population should be no more than 3 million.

If technology and native ingenuity can not deal with the aging population resulting then we will deserve what we get
11

CyclingEdinburgh,

09/01/2008 02:23:14
too little? too late?

Presume the Climate Change sceptics don't accept the idea of Peak Oil either.

http://cyclingedinburgh.info/2008/01/09/ten-simple-ways-we-can-all-help-save-the-planet


12

The Strategist,

09/01/2008 02:31:11
Yes, all very laudible. However, geology and economics are already doing a great job on their own. $100 oil is indicative of a growing gap between supply and demand and a liquid fuel supply crisis probably within the next five years or sooner is now pretty much guaranteed.

So - all very nice but I'd rather these two organisations put their efforts into pushing for much more investment into developing alternative fuels.

They should for example be berating the Scottish financial institutions for not putting up cash to initiate much more R&D in this area and funding the development of what's going to be a huge industry in which Scotland could play a major role.

As I've said before on here, Norway and a bunch of other countries are already rolling out hydrogen refuelling stations.. Norway has two companies building electric city cars.

Scotland and whole UK are so far behind the curve on this that it's placing our entire economy is real danger.
13

!Ya basta!,

09/01/2008 02:45:36
Almost anything anybody is prepared to do anywhere to tackle climate change is worth it. Morally we are obliged and spiritually we will be better off, good karma man and all that.

Fact is, in developing countries people are too busy trying to survive and have few resources and less choices to take environmental action, even though they are most affected and most vulnerable.

We, the powerful, have a moral obligation to do something for ourselves and them. At the same time as setting an example by living more sustainably ourselves and supporting the governments of developing countries to move toward environmentally sustainable growth we should stop strangling them with so-called "free trade" and "liberalisation" policies which actually force them to do the opposite. As many highly respected academics and commentators have observed, we need a fundamentally different kind of globalisation. Forget the World Economic Forum and G8, even the UN to a certain extent, look more towards the World Social Forum for answers. Bottom up democracy, people-centred growth, true accountability etc.

The population argument is false. It is a Victorian idea which has been disproved many times but persists because of ignorance (it appeals to simplistic logic which in fact is wrong because it does not account for all the facts) and that there is a policial agenda to it. We can support even higher populations sustainably if we are better organsied.

As it says in the article, we have to stop talking and start doing ourselves. Sure governments are powerful but ultimately they will respond to the greater force of personal, community and social action.

So get busy Scotland!
14

!Ya basta!,

09/01/2008 03:07:28
#12 - excellent points and exactly the kind of practical and realsitic thinking we need. The Scottish Parliament and Executive need to do exactly the things you suggets and much more rather than just talking about it.
15

W Smith,

Middle East 09/01/2008 03:10:33
#3 Lush
Well said.

5 million new cars take to the road each year in China - and why not?

The Indians and Chinese have suffered grinding poverty under the kind of socialism that Holyrood is promoting.

Now that these folks have got some money in their pockets these arrogant western eco-idiots want them to go without the cars and the holiday flights.

Meanwhile, some British and American celebrities fly around the world on their private jets preaching about the 'enviornment'.

16

!Ya basta!,

09/01/2008 03:51:21
Lush and W Smith, you are right that there is a global power game going on here and we should not deny India and China the growth they need.

But we should encourage environmentally sustainable growth as much as possible because it would be good for not only their countries but everyone else too.

We could at a stroke do a massive amount for their development by stopping massive EU and US industrial and agricultural subsidies and opening up our markets to their goods so that developing countries can compete in the so called "free market".

We should also support growth in developing countries that allows them to retain control of their own resources, at the moment, "Free trade" deals, "trade and financial liberalisation", so-called "democratisation" are just allowing a new form of colonialism which means we rip out their natural resources and use their cheap labour. Come the crash, which we know is coming, it is the countries that don't slavishly follow the WB and the IMF that will ultimately fare best.

I agree that there a lot of celebrity and other wankers on the green bandwagon but that doesn't mean it is not a good cause and that we shouldn't act as we preach and also do our bit too.
17

John, The wandering Scot,

Currently in the Philippines 09/01/2008 05:23:56
What a load of nonsense. I try not to laugh when the politicians and the 'educated, liberal and involved' great British public get on their (Recycled?)soapboxes. I see them driving up to the recycling bins, leaving their engines running as they unload their guilty consciences into the appropriate containers. Then with a smug grin, they drive the 20 metres +/- to the nearest parking space they can find to the shops.
If Scotland had it's own global micro climate, some of the article might make sense. However, this is an international issue. Scotland hardly figures in the equation.
I have lived in Saudi Arabia where my students sat in their gas guzzling Cadillacs with the engine running at breaks so that they can have the air conditioning on. I have sat in massive Dubai traffic jams for hours where thousands of cars sit stationary pumping out toxic fumes. The traffic jams in Manila sometimes last for 7 -8 hours. The vehicles are old and poorly maintained, the thick yellow fumes make a complete mockery of the West's pontifications on 'Going Green'.
My present hosts and neighbours switch on the engines of their large diesel vehicles long before they are ready to leave and this practise is the norm here.
Multiply the above by every large city in Europe, North America, China, India, much of Africa and South America. Now multiply it by 365 days per year. How much of an impact do we really believe having a shower instead of a bath will make?
As I understand it, energy saving bulbs, apart from the other nasty secondary issues, are only energy efficient if they are on for a long time.
I seem to remember reading that the present damage to the environment, which even the blind cynics are reluctantly having to recognise, was laid down 30 - 40 years ago. Unless I am mistaken, that means that even if we totally eliminated all carbon emissions/ greenhouse gasses today, we would/will still have to reap the harvest of the last thirty years.
Wake up folks: It's too b****y late
18

nabodican,

Portree 09/01/2008 05:41:00
Never in my life have I read such unadulterated scaremongering, ill informed, claptrap as this article.
It makes me want to puke.
I will believe we can change the climate at the same time as we learn how to turn back the tide.
We would be far better learning to live with climate change as our ancestors before us have done.
The Scotman and Holyrood can stick their campaign where the sun does'nt shine.
19

!Ya basta!,

09/01/2008 06:02:45
#17 It's not too late and we have to start to tackle it now before it is too late. We should lead by example and anyway it will make it more pleasant at home even if it isn't globally significant. Us taking the lead doesn't mean we don't apply political pressure to get other countries to do the same. I am sure there are environmentally conscious people in Suadi, Dubai and Manila that also want to do something. As I said above, in developing countries, like the Philippines many people concentrate on survival and have less choices but it doesn't mean that they don't care.

#18 easy for you to live with climate change when you are not at risk. Ask the global poor in under developed countries what they think about it after they lose their homes, livelihoods and sometimes their families and then have no possibility to recover.

The old maxim, "act local, think global" still applies.
20

Jimmy the Pie,

09/01/2008 06:03:05
What will happen first - global cooling or finding Wendy??
21

Jean Cannon,

Australia 09/01/2008 06:29:39
Well done Scotland and go bag your head Lush! Sure India and China have a huge job ahead of them but everyone on the planet needs to do more and those of us who are over consuming and over polluting, need to do more than those from less developed countries. Per head of population, India and China are doing less harm than those of us in developed countries.
I am proud of my Scottish start in life when I read this!
Jean Cannon www.envirojean.com
22

nightingale,

Peebles 09/01/2008 06:32:28
I fail to understand how this government S.N.P. can say they have green credentials when they continue to demand that houses must be built in the countryside, like Peebles, when they have to commute 23 miles to work on roads that where never meant to take the vast amount of traffic they generate. We should be using the countryside to grow food not carbon. How about making this no 11 to help save the planet.
23

nightingale,

Peebles 09/01/2008 06:40:19
The low energy light bulbs make people low and suffer from S.A.D due to the type of light they give of I would advise everyone to look up the Internet to discover the hidden dangers, as they are not suitable for everyone and can be extremely dangerous.
24

Iain fae Elgin,

London 09/01/2008 07:30:53
"3. Switch to using energy-saving light bulbs"

Switch of Public buildings, lit up like a christmas tree, before you come hypocritically asking me to do my little bit.

Which I can do without nagging.

25

Evan Owen,

Upper Gumtree 09/01/2008 07:39:30
Turn off the lights, the computer, the TV and the heating.

Leave the oil and coal in the ground.

Go back to the stone age, freeze your assets off.
26

steve 1511,

aberdeen 09/01/2008 08:02:43
is this a primary school kids project

china india america shoot out the soot, we suffer while they prosper, and we pay for it, more greenwash garbage .
27

DonaldK,

Brussels 09/01/2008 08:09:29
#27 - absolutely correct, the tree huggers are trying to take over with an almost religious fanaticism and they won't be happy until we're back living in the stone age.

Scotland's population could all drive 6 litre V8 gas guzzlers and it would have no impact on the destiny of the planet.

Tackling world poopulation growth is an important issue however (currently 6.6 billion growing by over 100 million a year) - but that's too hard for the politicians to tackle so they've all jumped on the green wagon instead.
28

Unimpressed one,

09/01/2008 08:10:52
Are there still people out there who don't think the environmental cause is a religion? Here we have the ten green commandments according to the Scotsman newspaper. Everyone of them is flawed,idiotic and naive, so needless to say neither I or my family will be 'obeying' any of them. Presumably we will be cursed in the name of Gaia and will burn in a greenie hell! Oh, but wait, burning gives off the greenie poisonous 'pollutant' CO2, so perhaps not.
29

Unimpressed one,

09/01/2008 08:16:21
#19, "Ask the global poor in under developed countries what they think about it after they lose their homes, livelihoods and sometimes their families and then have no possibility to recover." But the global poor have all these problems and none of them related to our behaviour. Have you ever asked people living in some of the most primitive countries what they think of 'green' efforts to 'save' them? I have. I won't bother to try to put their responseit into print since most words will be deleted automatically!
30

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

09/01/2008 08:54:24
If the climate is changing because of humans, then there are too many humans - end of.

Save the planet - kill yersel or those from another country. Environmental war based on underlying energy supply - I can see that coming.

On the bright side, we have more than enough neds, welfare lifestylists, criminals, rapists etc etc to swell the ranks of the canon fodder. If all nations entered into a war of attrition, we could save the planet in 5 years.

31

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

09/01/2008 09:00:54
Thinking about it, we haven't had a good clear out for over 60 years. No wonder things are bad.

Imagine if the 60 mill didn't die during WW2. The population of Europe would be about 600 million. Imagine the oil price and the cost of houses?
32

Dr Egg,

Sorry State 09/01/2008 09:08:02
Yes. The planet will be just fine. The sooner it shakes us off it's back the better it will be for the lifeforms that are left.
33

hud of sleat,

Yorkshire 09/01/2008 09:16:42
It all sounds reasonably straight forward, or does it. I understand that one of the eliments of the greenhouse effect is the fumes from traffic. If this is the case, why did (who ever it was) put a block on the car that ran on water? Was it to safe guard the oil industry. Surly the greenhouse effect is more important.
34

donald,

glasgow 09/01/2008 09:18:48
Tip no. 11. Don't buy Unionist rags.
35

Transparent?,

Scotland 09/01/2008 09:21:17
Quote:

"TODAY the Scottish Government and The Scotsman join forces to launch a campaign to persuade the nation to "go green" and sign up to a more environmentally friendly lifestyle."

So Salmond, the dictator, has now taken control of The Scotsman newpaper to force his energy plans on us. Next will be the Sunday Post, assisted by Campbell Gunn and Margo MacDonald - both SNP activists.
36

Mr H 2u,

Embra 09/01/2008 09:24:48
I'm with #3. Nothing has been proven yet, despite what the fascist greens would have you believe.

And one missile strike on Basra causes more CO2 emissions than I could manage in an entire lifetime of not recycling my water bottles.

It's just another way of one world governments creating a false enemy to deflect attention from their own earth destroying greed and corruption.
37

Deeko,

09/01/2008 09:33:09
It's a great drying day today!!
38

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

09/01/2008 09:38:25
34

Not really my thoughts Dave, just the observations of where we are now and how things transpired in the past.

I will always maintain that the fear culture was much better with a 'cold' war than an environmetal catastrophe though - better movies for a start, Bond, Hunt for Red October etc etc - Natasha Kinski!

The simple fact is that these folk are doing no good. They are the same folk that lament the fact ( once a year when its on the telly) that 50,000 African children die each day but don't give a penny to keep them alive or any of their time.

Lets face it, if we do nothing to stop over 18million African kids dying each year, who gives a farquhar about 18 million trees. Humans do not prioritise hence why they live with all this.

Bleeting is fine as long as the end product is covered in Madras sauce and accompanied with a Peshwari Nan.

39

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

09/01/2008 09:39:24
The problem, if there is one, has been proven to come from methane - everybody stop farting now.
40

Iain MS,

Newcastle 09/01/2008 09:48:50
The point here is that whether there is indisputable proof of global warming or not (personally I think the balance is definitely on the yes side) what's wrong with saving resources. These ten steps are all incredibly easy to do and would have no impact on the quality of our lives, so why can't everyone make a contribution. A change of mindset is required here.....remember to take your own carrier bags when you go to the shop, if you're only buying a newspaper then walking ten yards to the car, do you REALLY need a carrier bag which you'll immediately throw away? etc etc.

I think there's also an onus on business here. Shops should start charging for carrier bags (even a tiny cost will make people at least think about the issue) etc. A few weeks ago I noticed that ever lightbulb in my newly refurbished local pub was non energy-efficient. I wondered if - despite years of rhetoric by pub operators and other businesses - this was a frequent occurance. I'm not saying that I go into lots of pubs, but I've yet to note one that has ANY energy efficient lightbulbs.

Finally, something to add as an eleventh point : switch electrical items off standby when they're not being used. It's dead easy and even a microwave switched on overnight can use up a fair bit of power. Add tvs, radios, phone chargers, computer screens etc etc and multiply by ever house and office and it comes to an awful lot of wasted energy.
41

The Strategist,

09/01/2008 09:52:18
The emphasis on climate change has been created by the Westminster as a diversion away from the fact that they should have started ten years ago to mobilise our scientists and engineers to develop new energy technologies.

The proof is in the eating because very little of the new taxes raised are being put back into R&D.

Carbon trading and carbon offsets are part of the Govt scam. Nothing is achieved from these other than carbon brokers in the City make a lot of money out of it.
42

Queen D,

Glasgow 09/01/2008 09:54:05
Transparent,I too laughed at the headline that the Scotsman had joined forces with the Scottish Government.
Heavens!That'll make a change, I thought!!
43

Thunderstruck,

09/01/2008 10:18:40
The serious danger that faces us is that the genuine need to properly manage scarce resources will be undermined by the hysterical rantings and blatant propaganda of the loony green fringe and the opportunistic politicians who see this as a good source of tax income.

When they are exposed as dangerous frauds, the quite proper need for us to be "greener" will be put back decades.

Spring is nearly upon us and we can soon expect a new rush of "concerned" politicians flying to the Arctic to witness more "cataclysmic" ice melt. Curiously, something that they only manage to be able to do in the summer months when, surprise, surprise, the heat of the sun quite naturally returns water to its liquid state.

We never seem them in Svalbard in December or the Bering Sea in January.
44

Joey Pica,

Not altogether Sure 09/01/2008 10:19:21
1. Recycle household waste using facilities provided locally.
Or do not buy in the first place.

2. Turn the tap off when brushing your teeth.
The leaking supply pipework will negate any gains.

3. Switch to using energy-saving light bulbs
When you get a migraine from them - you lie down in a darkened room - thus saving even more.

4. Leave the car at home at least once a week and cycle, walk, share a car or use public transport more often.
Do not try this with your weekly shop or when you have flown to New York etc for the weekend break.

5. Use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones.
Or do not buy the battery operated s*x toys in the first place.

6. Reuse carrier bags when you shop.

Makes sense somewhere to put your empty McDonalds cartons etc INSTEAD of my front garden.


7. Buy more seasonal and unpackaged food

And have more unpakaged bruised fruit to "recycle".

8. Hang your washing up to dry rather than using a tumbler dryer.

Npower users will be the first to agree when they get the next bill.

9. Organise or volunteer in an environmental project in your local community.
Whist you're there can I come and watch your 52 inch Plasma TV - that uses 400 watts an hour - as I canna aford to run one.

10. Pay back the environmental impact of any flights you take and choose not to fly when there's a suitable alternative.

No matter that you can fly to Barcelona cheaper than going to Birmingham on the train.


45

Stuart Douglas,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 10:20:54
Why should I do anything?

It's much easier for me to sit on my lazy butt and whinge about how the scientists are all wrong, that being green is just a tax raising ploy by the government and greens are fascists anyway (!)

Plus, what's the point if China and India and the USA are just going to destroy the world with all their pollution (even though I don't believe that man-made pollution is responsible for climate change which I know makes me a hypocrite or maybe just stupid!)

So I'm just going to sit here and do nothing - that's the modern way.
46

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 09/01/2008 10:21:25
This is the scariest thing I have ever read in the Scotsman. Not because of the 'global warming' bullshit being propagated as the latest tsunami of 'the politics of fear' but because the PRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE INDEPENDENT OF GOVERNMENT. The job of a free press is to monitor, analyse, criticised and if necessary OPPOSE the establishment view. Here we have a national newspaper ignoring the relevant FACTS and climbing into bed with 'the Scottish government', The Green Party and Friends of the Earth.

Two weeks ago the United States Senate Committee on Climate Change published an earth shattering study. They took evidence from over 400 scientists and universities all over the world. The conclusion was that THERE IS NOT ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE THAT CARBON DIOXIDE OR MAN-MADE POLLUTION IS CAUSING THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE TO RISE.
All the claimed temperature rises are 'normal' variations when taken over a 100 year cycle and the Earth from 1680 to the present has been at the coldest part of the cycle. Any 'rises' that are now occurring are part of a natural cycle which we can do nothing whatever to influence.

See the official report here:
The US Senate's Environment Committee has just issued a major report on Global Warming (20th Dec 2007).

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
47

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 09/01/2008 10:33:01
I thought about it but no im going to continue with my wasteful lifestyle unabated. I'm gonna continue to use up the planets resources at an alarming rate and i'm gonna continue to drive my petrol car to work and use my tumble drier. but thanks for the advice which I will completely ignore.
48

Gothic Rose,

09/01/2008 10:36:13
18#Nabodican. Says it as it is.

Wendy is spending a few days with Peter Pan.?
49

Stuart Douglas,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 10:40:33
Well said #53 Banana Heid

Why should we care about the future anyway? Who cares if the seas rise and millions suffer? Who cares about desertification and the increase in immigration as people seek water and other resources?

Who cares if tropical diseases spread around the world as it heats up bringing death and misery to millions? Who cares if species are wiped out leading to a massive decrease in biological diversity?

Let us continue on our way, using up the plants resources and turning a blind eye to the misery. I want to watch my plasma TV and drive my 4x4 to and from the supermarket. I want to turn up my heating and sit around the house in a t-shirt and I want to buy food that's been flown half-way across the world when it could be grown locally.

I am the true 21st century Briton. All hail me!
50

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 09/01/2008 10:49:48
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D4B5FD23-802A-23AD-4565-3DCE4095C360
December 13, 2007
BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."

"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK)

The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Weg
51

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 09/01/2008 10:51:38
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line

by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The s
52

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 09/01/2008 10:51:58
The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus
53

Richard Lionheart,

09/01/2008 10:53:55
According to the Environmentalist campaigners in the Guardian, we could save the planet if we all stopped eating meat. There would apparently be no demand for cows to be farmed and this would save the world, presumably because there would not be so many of them burping.

This action is said to be of greater benefit to the environment than not using carrier bags, as carrier bags according to the Guardian campaigner don’t harm the environment anyway.

Presumably the Scotsman is not following this line because of the dependence of the Farming industry in Scotland on beef production and the fact that cows also provide milk and the many diverse dairy products which come from that.

The great new religion of Environmentalism is now passing through the pick the bits you like era, and the message you get is now more dependent upon the belief of the teacher.

Maybe one day when Gordon Brown realises that the £2bn environmental market is bolstering the Chinese and Indian economy at our expense we will get back to normality, if there is such a thing and concentrate on adapting to our changing climate rather than trying to stop it changing, which is impossible.
54

The Strategist,

09/01/2008 10:56:48
#48 Chairman Gordon

So why are your electricity and gas costs going up and why are petrol and diesel prices at record levels? It certainly isn't because oil/gas is still cheap and plentiful.

Global oil supply peaked in 2005. Supply has fallen by over 2m barrels/day since then. The shortfall is mainly being made up from gas liquids which are a relatively short life resource produced at the tail end of field production.
55

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 09/01/2008 10:57:33
continued:
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University
56

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 09/01/2008 10:58:35
continued
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingen
57

Malcolm Xxx,

Glasgow 09/01/2008 11:00:34
Here's to "Tweedmouth" the only sane person on this forum, the rest... well some are nearly there !!!!
58

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 11:00:35
I already do most of those things suggested. It's common sense.

Why do they have to put about scaremongering stories like those above? "Wars over territory" indeed. What a daft concept.

The real issue here is not about climate change, global warming or whatever the idiotic tree-huggers want to call it. the issue is about the fact that fossil fuels are finite and we need to do something NOW to develop alternatives whilst there is still time.

If the government is really serious about all this, rather than just being serious about restricting people's freedom and justifying huge taxes, then they would be building nuclear power stations as fast as they could, to replace the gas, oil and (if there are any left) coal fired ones.

They would also be investing heavily in nuclear research in order to find a solution to the problem of what is incorrectly termed "nuclear waste".

If the prophecies of doom and gloom are correct (which they are not) then they should also be thinking about re-locating businesses etc so that they would be clear of flooded areas. There is plenty of time to do it now. If their prophecies come true, it will be too late then.

Instead, what are they doing? Playing with a few windmills and using their rediculous propaganda to justify high taxes. If they can't do the job, get them out and get someone in who can. I'm fed up with being lied to and I'm fed up with nothing being done that will REALLY address the future issues.
59

Fairfax,

09/01/2008 11:02:49
Item 1 in article: "THE average person in Scotland throws away their own body weight in waste every seven weeks."

I see little point in quoting the statistic in this way, not least because it's main purpose is to shock us all with the sheer size of rubbish. However, if we take the volume of rubbish to be, say, 70 litres per person per seven weeks, then that's roughly 0.07*7*5*10^6 cubic metres per year waste for Scotland. If that's placed in a rectangular hole 10m deep, then the side of the hole is sqrt((0.07 * 7 * 5 000 000) / 10) = 495 m, i.e. the yearly waste of Scotland fits into a rectangular hole roughly 1/2 km on its side and 10m depth. That's almost certainly an overestimate, since much of the material could be compressed further, or burnt.
60

tomislav,

home 09/01/2008 11:08:45
Utter waffle ,,,,, we live in a society where the emphasis is on consumerism, buy!!!! buy!!!! buy!!!! Sale!!!! Special offer!!!! hurry hurry hurry,,,, come and buy what you don't need ,,, the message is relentless, persistent and hypnotic. So where then is the "Scottish Government's" (I am Scots and live in Scotland and my Government is in London by the way) initiative and campaign to BUY LESS, surely that is the key to recycling, dont buy it in the first place. Now can you imagine the screams if the Government sponsored a similarv campaign of advertisement on TV saying No!!!! Don't buy that unwanted furniture!!!! Use your exsiting stuff, No!!!! Don't go to the sales, you have almost no room in your house to keep what you already have anway !!!!! or maybe "Hey you, how many pairs of shoes do you need, you were only given 2 feet" !!! so please spare me articles like this rubbish because to be honest, putting my Irn Bru can into a wee bag and then thinking "am'nt I good boy, I'm a recycler" (as I dash of of to the sales ,,, again) just doesn't do it for me
61

,

09/01/2008 11:14:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
62

Stuart Douglas,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 11:27:40
One thing I would add though - if you don't believe that humans are responsible for climate change and don't want to change your own lifestyles why do you bother joining in these types of debates?

Leave them to people who do care so they can give each other advice. If people want to see both sides of the argument then there is plenty of opportunity for them to do so.

I actually find it funny that so many of those who are opposed to the idea of man-made climate change are so adamant in their beliefs that they refuse to consider the possibility that they could be wrong.
63

nick prince,

warrington 09/01/2008 11:32:43
Hey No 64 Mr High Octane Head, are you really, really, really sure that the scare is not true?

Scientists are rarely completely right but they are never completely wrong. From the tone of your post it seems that you do already conserve resources and save money where you can. Great, but some of the other posters seem determined to wilfully disregard all exhortations to go greener, perhaps they even deliberatley drive more in traffic jams to force home the point?

Where I think you are wrong is in your faith in Nuclear Power as a great white hope, it is a very capital expensive and labour unintensive source, Design faults always get discovered and are very hard to retrofit against. Once upon a time it was thought that nuclear energy would be so cheap that it would be unmeterable. That dream dissolved a very long time ago.

The nuclear research people also have in a bad name in past years for deliberately stifling research in renewables. It may surprise you to know in the seventies and eighties all money for renewable energy research came from the fees and grants section of the united kingdom atomic energy authority. Thay always spent in on nuclear and in 1990 a house of lords investigation caught them at it.

Some of us remember this and will never support Nuclear power because of it, People have always lied about prices and efficiency and the industry will always be shrouded in secrecy, how the public trust this industry
64

nick prince,

warrington 09/01/2008 11:34:11
last line should be how can the public trust this industry?
65

jj55,

09/01/2008 11:35:38
Why all the fuss about saving the planet. The planet will be fine, it has had 6 mass extinctions already. its mankind and all living things that need to be saved. and its never going to happen. Thanks to greed.
66

Gothic Rose,

09/01/2008 11:46:02
Hail to Stuarty boy 51# Have nice day:)
67

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 09/01/2008 11:55:30
The planet will survive no matter what (ceteris paribus), as will nature. Humans represent an evolutionary cul de sac and the sooner we wipe ourselves out the better for the rest of nature.

However, as there is no actual need for us to self destruct inasmuch as we could all start rowing the boat in the right way and direction, what the Scotsman says makes a little sense. Green energy, less materialistic life styles, vegetarianism and population control, etc, are worthy targets and within our grasp. The more of us who go for that the better.

Let's try while we still can.
68