Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Question of the week

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: 21 June 2009
WELCOME to Scotland on Sunday's online feature, Question of the Week.
Each week we ask the readers of scotlandonsunday.com for their views on a burning issue from the past seven days.

The best responses may be reproduced on the Online Forum page in Sunday's print edition of the newspaper on June 28th.

If you wish to appear in Scotland on Sunday, then, along with your response, please leave a first name and surname, as well as your location - eg Tom Smith, Edinburgh. We welcome all comments.

The question this week is...

Should Scotland be setting an example to the world on climate change?



Page 1 of 1

 
1

bfarquhar,

27/06/2009 08:19:44
It would certainly be a big improvement on being known as the heart attack capital of Europe, a knife crime blackspot, the heart of the Swine Flu outbreak etc etc. But will it really benefit us to be a beacon of green progress? And don’t our green achievements fall within Britain’s international commitments on climate change. I hope all our wind farms aren’t going to let England off the hook.
2

Marly, Perth,

27/06/2009 10:26:42
These are only promises. The targets haven’t been met yet. I can’t see how Scotland can really improve its environment – forget abstract figures about carbon dioxide – without radically improving its transport system. Government policies don’t seem to have any effect on ending the gridlock on our roads, and until we have better rail and bus links that’s going to continue.
3

Unimpressed one,

28/06/2009 09:57:45
Any bunch of fools can propose targets based on made up figures and percentages, but the real proof of the pudding is what will it all cost. Once these actions are quantified, we'll see that it's all green pi*sh as usual.
4

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 28/06/2009 15:14:39
No. The implication is that a) climate change is bad b) it is predicated on the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by humans.

However, climate change is natural and has been happening since time began. We can adjust to the titanic forces which cause these changes but hoping to cut a minute quantity of CO2 to effect a "downward" change in global temperature is frankly useless.

Which brings me to the humans who think it isn't. Who brings in a CO2 target reduction of 42% and why do they think that's any better than 34%? How much will it cost and what are implications for domestic and industrial activity? These things remain uncosted and unevaluated yet are of prime importance to the economic development of Scotland. This is very similar to the figure plucked out of the air By Gordon Brown of £60bn per annum to assist "poor countries" (I thought that was us) to cope with the effects of climate change. Good headline for Copenhagen but ruinous to the people of the UK. That, for what it's worth, is what we would spend on a new Trident but EVERY year!

The sooner we kick into touch the often unelected and computer model addicted clowns who are substituting this "science" for a real job the better. Dodgy politicians, Greens, research grant seekers and other time wasters included.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.