Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Ten simple ways we can all help save the planet

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.

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

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.
6

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.
7

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
8

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
9

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


10

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.
11

!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!
12

!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.
13

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'.

14

!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.
15

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
16

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.
17

!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.
18

Jimmy the Pie,

09/01/2008 06:03:05
What will happen first - global cooling or finding Wendy??
19

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
20

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.
21

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.
22

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.

23

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.
24

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 .
25

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.
26

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.
27

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!
28

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.

29

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?
30

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.
31

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.
32

donald,

glasgow 09/01/2008 09:18:48
Tip no. 11. Don't buy Unionist rags.
33

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.
34

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.
35

Deeko,

09/01/2008 09:33:09
It's a great drying day today!!
36

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.

37

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.
38

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.
39

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.
40

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!!
41

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.
42

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.


43

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.
44

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
45

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.
46

Gothic Rose,

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

Wendy is spending a few days with Peter Pan.?
47

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!
48

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
49

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
50

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
51

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.
52

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.
53

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
54

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
55

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 !!!!
56

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.
57

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.
58

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
59

,

09/01/2008 11:14:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

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.
61

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
62

nick prince,

warrington 09/01/2008 11:34:11
last line should be how can the public trust this industry?
63

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.
64

Gothic Rose,

09/01/2008 11:46:02
Hail to Stuarty boy 51# Have nice day:)
65

PJ,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 11:57:18
Ah Tweedmouth, Coldstream the great and the good telling us how we should live our lives, I wonder how many of those great/good who turned up in Bali live be there own rules! The laughable UN climate change conference which took place on the paradise island of Bali which itself became a major contributor to global warming. Calculations suggest flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television crews into Indonesia generated the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That was supposed to be similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

Chris Goodall, a carbon emissions expert who did the calculations for a Sunday Times article, estimated that each person flying to Bali was, on average, said to have generated the equivalent of 6.48 tonnes of CO2. There 15,000 people attending, which adds up to over 97,000 tonnes of CO2. To this was added about 13,000 tonnes of CO2 from the conference venue and hotels — a total of 110,000 tonnes. That is supposed to be similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

In this age of modern technology i.e. video conferencing, did they all feel that they had to attend for Al Gore along with his cronnies to sit there saying “flying don’t do it, it is harming the environment!” It reminds me of the Heathrow protest. The 2,000 campaigners/tree huggers, supposed to be there protesting about climate change and the prospect of another Terminal arrived in various modes of transport from all around the UK and other parts of Europe! This on top of the worlds media, by the van load not to mention 1,800 police officers from four other forces in the UK in various vehicles which shows what a farce it was.

I also find it quite ironic that tree hugging/vegan, space cadet Heather Mills last year suggested what we to do to save the planet by telling us we should be drinking rats, cats or dog milk and what does she turn up in but a 4 x 4!

My tip to tree huggers, peopl
66

PJ,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 11:58:30
continued...!

My tip to tree huggers, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

The switch to energy-saving light bulbs are also said to be putting thousands at risk of painful skin reactions, health charities have warned as fluorescent bulbs can exacerbate skin rashes in people with photosensitive skin conditions. It has been estimated about 100,000 people in the UK alone with these skin conditions will be affected, so Government and tree huggers alike are putting these people lives and health at risk especially as they are often trapped indoors because they can't venture out in natural sunlight. So what will happen to them as they are planning to prevent the sale of conventional bulbs by 2011, to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

New energy-saving bulbs produce a more intense light which can cause eruptions of existing skin problems, like eczema, and even lead to skin cancer not to mention exacerbate dizziness and discomfort to people with epilepsy in total that would effect 340,000 people. But hey it’s only 340,000 people, in the UK alone. But then again this would of course contradict many other policies of the government, including Disability Equality Duty, which came into force on 4 December 2006, and the Green Paper on Welfare Reform published in January 2006.

Ah but the rich and the famous have responded to “celebriticians” like Gore and Kerry by ditching their gas-guzzling Hummers in exchange for more fuel-efficient hybrid cars. They started replacing their Evian plastic water bottles with glass-bottled Voss, even installed energy-efficient windows throughout their 10,000-square-foot Beverly Hills mansions.

Do as we say, not say as we do
67

jj55,

09/01/2008 11:59:08
for no.70 the public cant trust any industry or organisation. there will always be the odd lie or something they don't want us to know. as long as the moneys coming in and share holders are getting their dividends they don't care. and i ain't an anti capitalist
68

Harbinger,

in a computer programme 09/01/2008 12:04:09
Wardog 5 So what's the question?
69

Stuart Douglas,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 12:05:22
Isn't it funny how people like PJ and Tweedmouth put so much faith in scientists who happen to back THEIR views but give short shrift to scientists who offer a different view?

It also makes me laugh when people like PJ and W Smith have to resort to childish name calling using expressions such as "western eco idiots" and "tree hugging vegan/space cadet" in their arguments.

If you can't get involved in adult debates with resorting to childish name calling then I suggest you leave it to people who can.
70

belzebub,

edinburgh 09/01/2008 12:15:32
If the cost of taking the train to london was not five times more than the cost of flying then perhaps we would consider taking the train despite the usual filthy state of the carriages and lack of refreshment facilities.
Why does the government not do something about the lunatic cost of rail travel ?
71

Richard Lionheart,

09/01/2008 12:34:19
Let’s all hear it for Stewart Douglas, who only wants a “debate” which agrees with his point of view.
72

Richard Lionheart,

09/01/2008 12:37:24
PS Sorry, Stuart Douglas who only wants a debate which agrees with his point of view
73

PJ,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 12:40:13
# 78 Stuart Douglas

Sorry for using big words, if you want I will spell them out phonetically so you can understand! But if you are warped by Al Gore, with his global warming religion the elite of the scientific community and the well-to-do of the social set. Where the sceptics are ridiculed, denounced, and pointed at as they were the idiots, then that is up to you.

Environmentalists claim the recent climate change is the result of human activities and society must give up most of its energy supply to prevent global catastrophe. Consequently, thousands of people die each day, needlessly, because they do not have access to affordable energy to power water pumps, refrigerators, stoves and transportation. I feel sorry for you, if you don’t feel that is adult enough conversation.
74

Saoghal Beag,

09/01/2008 12:41:40
78 Stuart, no what is really funny is that though Tweedmouth goes on, ad nauseum, about the proportion of carbon atoms emitted from the uk as being so small as to be insignificant, he fails to relate his small selection of scientists who fall into such an insignificant minority that their views are not even relevant let alone significant.

There are still those who voiciferously oppose darwinism based evolution completely while the majority of scientists discuss the details of the theory. Likewise with climate change and anthropogenic influences.
75

The Dragon,

Midlothian 09/01/2008 12:43:32
Well this article has certainly wasted a lot of paper, time, effort and presumably power! And I guess also reduced productivity from those who are supposed to be at work (I am not).

May I suggest that The Scotsman save resources every day by producing a newspaper instead of trying to be a health / womens / mens / art / car / culture etc. magazine?

Yes I would buy a NEWS paper and if I wanted the other things I would buy them too. But just imagine how much of what is produced every day is just thrown away - or hopefully recycled!
76

Allan(handofgod137),

09/01/2008 12:51:45
#10 Well said, the human race are a virus with shoes. If we really want to save the planet then we need less people.
77

Richard Lionheart,

09/01/2008 12:59:12
#83 You say about Tweedmouth,
“he fails to relate his small selection of scientists who fall into such an insignificant minority that their views are not even relevant let alone significant.”

Presumably then the 52 minority scientists who participated in the UN IPCC Summary are even less relevant let alone insignificant

“Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
78

junk,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 13:13:34
Stopping the Edinburgh Council from building on green space is one idea to help save the planet.

Portobello Park and Golf Course is common good land and as such is protected, however the council still are trying to build on it.

sign the petition to save portobello park at

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

to see what common good is click

http://www.andywightman.com/commonweal/docs/commongood_v3.pdf

79

Unimpressed one,

09/01/2008 13:41:34
#73,"Humans represent an evolutionary cul de sac and the sooner we wipe ourselves out the better for the rest of nature." Why not set a personal example and publically top yourself as a gesture to 'saving the planet'. That way we us skeptics can see that at least some eco-nutters are are prepared to act on their principals as opposed to spout banal rhetoric.
80

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 09/01/2008 13:45:54
#55 Actually a 21st Century Scot not Brit. Anyway It's mankind which needs saving not the world and who is the root cause of the planets misery? Funny enough it's mankind. When we are gone the planet will be perfectly fine thank you very much. Well maybe after a couple of million years, after our damage has been reversed. So long as man walks the earth the disease which is us will continue to ravage the planet so it's better off without us. So actually I am helping the planet by continuing in my human activity thus ensuring we are all doomed and destined to be fertiliser for the next generation of biodiversity.
81

Saoghal Beag,

09/01/2008 13:51:11
86 richard, i would agree that a smaller number were less signiciant but the fact remains that the majority of cliamte scientists are in consensus that global climate change is a reality. Beyond that there is a majority that accept that human activity has had/is having a significant impact on the rate and nature of the change.
82

Scythia,

Glasgow 09/01/2008 13:57:05
I dont buy it, they can't even predict the weather 3 days down the the line, how can they safely predict it 50 or a 100 years. The worrying aspect is they are teaching this guff to our school kids.

I agree with the bulk of the scientists. Of course there's global warming, but there's global cooling too and over the piece we have just a natural cycle.



Among the IPCC's warming "deniers" is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting -- a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number -- entirely without merit," he said. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output."
83

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 09/01/2008 14:04:28
Heres a novel idea! Everyone right now grab some good quality hard wearing paint! drive down to the shore and paint a line at the water mark, Check the tidal status and next year at approximately the same time and tidal phase check to see if there is a marked increase. Keep doing this for the next 50 years and we will know for sure if the sea is rising. Personally I havent noticed that much of a difference since I was a child it has remained almost exactly the same.
84

Bien E. Bien,

09/01/2008 14:18:22
I routinely do all of the points listed above, apart from organising volunteer groups, as most of my neightbours are a bunch of hooligans, and paying a carbon offset for any flights that I take, as this is just a big scam.

However, I also drive a big car with a 6.0 litre V12 engine (Coventry's finest). Does this mean that we are all doomed?
85

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/01/2008 14:27:02
Again we are being fed mis-information, quote:

"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."

This is simply not true. The earth's temperature has been significantly higher than this in the past and to try to link the 2C rise to industrialisation is dishonest.

I am all for reducing pollution, re-cycling household waste etc to conserve energy resources and keep the air as clean as possible, but when we start feeding our children the lie that carbon dioxide is some sort of "pollutant" I get really angry. Politics meets science and politics prevails.
86

cabrach loon,

Inverness 09/01/2008 14:33:45
All very good but why does Highland Council not recycle plastic containers, tetrabloks etc. as is done throughout Europe - polycarbons are too valuable to waste yet in Inverness they are just landfill. WHY? If the councils say they care they fail to demonstrate it.!
87

BMeister,

09/01/2008 14:34:58
#86 Richard
“Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers”

What a pathetically spurious piece of statistics upon which to try and base an argument.
Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, hundreds contributed to the Bible, which is more scientifically accurate?
88

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/01/2008 14:37:36
I have started stock-piling conventional light bulbs so that I can carry on using them for years to come.

My reasons? I hate the light quality from high efficiency bulbs and they contain mercury which is hazardous to health and the environment. I also hate being told what to do by people who have no intention of following their own advice (the day Al Gore stops flying so will I). But most of all this global warming industry is based on bad science and exaggeration.
89

Dumfries,

Dumfries 09/01/2008 14:45:21
The arguments surrounding this break down into three areas: global warming, resource depletion, and waste disposal. For those who believe in global warming please, please look at some numbers, look at some data. We measure temperature in degrees not polar bears or penguins. There has been no significant warming since 1990. This does not fit with predictions.

As to resource depletion, it is all going to run out sometime and we should do what we can to eke things out. This will be forced on us at some point. Targets for reducing this or that are not God given. They are self imposed by governments (some EU some home grown).

Waste disposal is just messy. Recycling doesn't actually do much to save energy, or the planet, or anything, it just reduces the amount going to landfill which is EU legislation. Why is waste a problem now? The answer is because we all used to have coal fires and we burned most of it. Heat for free. You youngsters cannot remember that.

These ideas are basically nonsense. They will do nothing that has any noticeable effect. Long haul flights? Never been on one and no intention to. How do I save the planet then? I reckon I am in carbon credit judging by this list. Now, anybody want to salve their conscience? Then pay me your carbon credit for me not to go on a long haul flight and you can jet off to Oz or the US. I could make a fortune here. I am really green according to this list but I still reckon it is all nonsense.
90

Saoghal Beag,

09/01/2008 14:53:55
98 Connaughtboy, they energy saving lights are generally compact flourescents (CFL), we've had flourescent strip lights with us for long enough so they are not that new.

CFLs give a much cleaner whiter light than incandescent lamps so they give better contrast when reading. They can be tinted a dirty yellow to mimic the incandescents, but the best thing is you can burn five of these in place of one incandescent lamp at the same cost. Perish the thought that anyone should tell you to save some cash you can't buy commonsense can you?

Please please please don't jump of the nearest bridge.
91

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/01/2008 14:56:36
Surely tip #4 is flawed. Are aeroplanes not public transport?
92

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/01/2008 15:00:33
#99 Dumphries, claimed:

"There has been no significant warming since 1990."

The smoothed temperature value for 1990 was +0.149C above the 1961-1990 mean. 2006 was +0.433C above.

What you say is untrue. See

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

and click on "comma-separated values" below the graph.

Were you genuinely unaware of the evidence, or were you deliberately spreading misinformation?

93

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 15:06:26
To learn how Exxon funds global warming denial go to Exxonsecrets.com
94

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/01/2008 15:10:13
#68 Stuart

I think you got that the wrong way round. In my experience, the people who refure to see the other side of the debate are the pro-Global Warming lobby ie "the debate is over".

And the reason I join in these debates as a "non-believer" is that I am appalled at the lies and hypocrisy we see on the pro side of the debate.
95

Dumfries,

Dumfries 09/01/2008 15:14:43
102 Slioch
This is what I mean, people not understanding. You cannot use smoothed values nor are these precise temperatures, they are averages from a number of weather stations unevenly spread across the globe, and many actual temperatures are little more than estimates since whole months can be missing. So you have an uncertainty margin on these values and the margins overlap for 1990 and 2006 (the most recent) so you cannot say that there has been a statistically significant rise in temperature. You need the Hadcrut 3 record. 1990 is 0.254 above and 2006 is 0.414 above the 1961 -90 average but there is an uncertainty margin of about plus or minus 0.1 of a degree. The only really homogeneous record is the MSU satellite data which is uncorrupted by ground effects. It is highly dishonest that various bodies present these temperatures as accurate and precise. However, it is beyond argument that 1998 was the warmest year on record.
96

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 15:16:45
52. Tweedmouth pastes up slabs of lies and propaganda originated by the Republicans in particular James Inhofe who was behind that phony Senate Committee report.

Inhofe had also made allegations that the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers

The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.
97

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/01/2008 15:18:12
#91 You miss the point. The question is not about whether global warming is a reality, the question is whether mankind and CO2 emissions are the cause. I suggest to you that there is far less consensus on the latter than you imagine.
98

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/01/2008 15:23:24
#100 And what about the mercury??
99

Saoghal Beag,

09/01/2008 15:25:56
Dumfries
has been no significant warming since 1990.

it is beyond argument that 1998 was the warmest year on record.

How do you explain this away without resorting to averages, but before you do you cna provide us with the data which confirms 1998 as the warmest and the temperatures for other years from 1990 to 2007.

100

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 15:30:04
Now the insurance industry is taking climate change seriously, it's time to sit up and take notice:

http://www.lloyds.com/NR/rdonlyres/38782611-5ED3-4FDC-85A4-5DEAA88A2DA0/0/FINAL360climatechangereport.pdf
101

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 15:33:06
The number of extreme weather events has increased by a factor of five in 50 years according to the insurance company Munich Re.

The summer of 2003 was the hottest in Europe since at least the year 1500.
102

Saoghal Beag,

09/01/2008 15:41:22
11 fred, no need to panic, dumfries, tweedmouth and co have been taking fiddle lessons and are planning they're trip to rome already.
103

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 15:41:48
'It is generally agreed that the 1990s was the warmest decade, and 2005 the warmest year, in a millennium.'

from the Lloyds report referenced in #110.
104

Canadian in Edinburgh,

09/01/2008 15:44:49
When will people take a step back and start thinking for themselves! I can't believe people take heed from some airheaded celebs who say we should stop taking needless trips by plane or wasting resources, yet they jump into their private jet and fly half way around the world for a party or something...pathetic! Once they start practicing what they preach, I won't be having any of it!
We have had freak weather before and we'll continue to have freak weather, global warming in my eyes is a bunch of lies. All these scientists getting funds to prove global warming is true, why aren't the scientists that are trying to dis-prove it not getting any funds? Oh wait, the gov't can't tax people if it's been dis-proved.....
Global warming = BIG LIE! I'll continue taking my holidays to wherever I please and driving my car whenever I please.
105

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 15:59:32
93 doubts sea level rise...

'Global-average sea level is believed to have risen by between 10-20 cm during the past century and best estimates are that it will rise by approximately 50 cm in the next 100 years (i.e. an acceleration of a factor of 3 in the rate). Rising sea levels are largely a consequence of the thermal expansion of the ocean, melting of low latitude glaciers (Alps, Rockies etc.) and many other factors, each of which are reviewed every few years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

- NERC Oceanographic Laboratory.
106

Ron D,

EnyBru 09/01/2008 16:00:12
The council are about to "upgrade" our stair lighting with even more, brighter lights - who knows why. Compared to the energy consumed by all the street and stair lighting I'm inclined to feel that any reductions I make in power consumtion will be insignificant.
107

Dumfries,

09/01/2008 16:12:45
109 Saoghal Beag There's something called Google
Type in HadCRUT3 that's the Climate Research Unit, Met Office. That honest enough?

Type in MSU. That is the NSSTC.

Both organisations of impeccable objectivity and international credibility. I never use opinions only data. Suggest you all try doing the same.

Of course when I say hottest etc I am only going back 150 years or so.

108

Pomona man,

09/01/2008 16:23:58
I've said it here before and will say it again (as obviously the Scottish Exec aren't listening).

LOW ENERGY LIGHT BULBS DO NOT SAVE ANY ENERGY AT ALL WHEN THEY ARE BEING USED IN A HEATED ROOM
109

PJ,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 16:25:52
# 111

Hmm and the second hottest summer in the period was in 1757, wonder what or who they blamed for that one! Planes (there were none), factories, increase of population? Nope.

That was followed by a cooling trend that continued until early in the 20th century. The summer of 1902, for instance, was the coolest of the entire record.
110

JohnDavoch,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 16:34:01
#108 Connaughtboy - Re: Mercury

CFLS and MERCURY:

The fossil fuels used to generate electricity contain mercury as well and therefore cause emissions of mercury. The mercury emissions by a CFL lamp over its lifetime from the electricity consumed is about 2.4mg of mercury. Emissions from the electricity consumed by an incandescent light bulb over the same period is about 10mg. Therefore a CFL bulb emits 76% less mercury over the same time period.

A CFL does also contain about 5mg of mercury but this will not be emitted to atmosphere provided the bulb is not broken. This mercury can be reclaimed by recycling your CFLs responsibly (check out IKEA as one example).

Even if all the mercury in the CFL was emitted to atmosphere, it would still be less than the mercury emitted by using incandescent bulbs.

Hope that helps to clarify things.
111

PJ,

Edinburgh 09/01/2008 16:40:38
#115

Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models that they used do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable.
112

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/01/2008 18:33:39
#105 Dumphries said, "You cannot use smoothed values"

On the contrary, the use of smoothed values when comparing a trend over a period of time is the most appropriate. Otherwise you can cherry pick values that most support the point you wish to make, which is precisely what you did. By choosing 1990 as the start point of the period up to 2006 you chose a year whose value was 0.105C above the smoothed value, thus minimising the gain to 0.166C. Had you started your period at 1989, which was 0.033C below the smoothed value, then the gain would be 0.317C, almost double. The use of the smoothed value minimises these statistical shenanigans, and gives a gain of 0.284C.

You also demonstrate your bias by cherry picking the year 1998, which was a strong El Nino year. During such times global temperatures are typically 0.2C above what they would otherwise be, and this was approximately the case with 1998.

Nor is it the case that the errors in such attempts to measure global temperatures are not acknowledged by those who make and collate them.
113

Media 1,

cape town 09/01/2008 18:40:49
The author writes..."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"

What he should have said was
"Whether humanity takes steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or not, the world will be hit by famine, drought, floods, storms of increasing intensity and rising sea levels, because nature follows a cycle that cannot be changed. NOT EVEN BY MAN
114

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/01/2008 19:11:37
Is it a surprise that, as China and India emerge as industrial powerhouses and America still will not tap into its oil reserves, we are getting this propaganda?

It's all to do with renewables - forward thinking. We're no a' doomed. We need more Scots (for the spaceship to the new world). So get out there and breed (the good Lord gave you glands) and take all this excetum tauri with your daily od of salt.

Once the taxation system has harmonised your children will still be paying through the nose for renewable energy.
115

tyson,

annapolis maryland 09/01/2008 19:25:52
Eat one meal less each week.
Do not buy water in plastic bottles.
Walk rather than drive.
Mock politicians and famous folk who simply "must" travel by helicopter.
Return to having non-essential stores closed on Sundays.
Buy less stuff manufactured in China.
Turn down the heat and stay warm by enjoying more sex.
116

The Strategist,

09/01/2008 20:54:24
I think I'll move to Eigg..

They've got the right idea. Total energy independence from a range of sources including wind, solar and mini-hydro. They are also looking at producing hydrogen by electrolysis to fuel their cars.

117

Reekin' Lum,

09/01/2008 21:13:24
Absolute rubbish. This is the biggest scam going invented by a failed liberal American politician who also "invented the internet".
And the politicians are just running scared, no one can just stand up and say that this whole caper is just garbage. There's nothing factual here- those who have signed on to this will not hear counter arguments or just plain reason from those who know. Thus it has become a religion- this is the credo- don't question it!
All this will die down , of course, when we have our next major conflagration and these loonies will be forgotten.
By the way, how are the rain forests coming along?















118

Reekin' Lum,

09/01/2008 21:26:41
#52 Just read your comment- I had jumped in late - good one. There is so much balderdash going around and if it was not alarming, it might be amusing, - seeing how rational thinking CEO's of large corporations and , of course, our mealie -mouthed politicians, jumping through hoops to show that they care about GW. The Corporate CEO's, of course are paying lip service to this nonsense since they do not want to jeopardise their profits but it is sad that no one has had the guts to stand up and say that this whole caper is a farce.
It was also expected that someone like the dreaded Broon would jump straight onto the bandwagon in his many attempts to clutch at straws and save his forthcoming lynching as he's dragged away in a tumbril.
The rest of the opposition party leaders don't have the guts to denounce this hoax and it's a shame the SNP is now getting embroiled in this.
119

Yane,

Melbourne 09/01/2008 22:48:27
C'mon guys, this article is really tame. It wouldn't do any harm tae chuck yer bottles in the recycle bin.
120

scotsdoc,

NANAIMO BC CANADA 09/01/2008 23:22:41

Och, and the easiest and best way to go green would be for us all to live in a cave preferably with a southern exposure somewhere, and semi hibernate during the winter months as our ancient ancestors did(and some present day FRENCH rural peasants still seem to do).

Sure and all, there might be a lot fewer deaths of old folks in Scotland in winter due to cold hypothermia,if this climatic warming really does arrive some day.
121

Yane,

Melbourne 10/01/2008 00:54:35
#134 Och no - nae all that - just the bottles in the bin.
122

tomi,

10/01/2008 01:24:38
How many Tons of carbon dioxide emissions could we save if everyone pleged not to breath out for a week?
123

HA,

Beith 10/01/2008 08:26:25
It's vitally important that people from Glasgow don't have to burn up the miles to get to get to truly green places. We have Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park on our doorstep, but it is under grave threat from highly profitable but seriously underproductive wind farms. For more info on threat to Muirshiel Park
www.saveyourregionalpark.com
124

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/01/2008 10:41:23
Since #125 the comments on my screen have been partially obscured by a series of thin red/orange vertical lines.

Has anyone else got these??
125

Hickory,

US 10/01/2008 20:47:17
Aye, there is something you can do to save the planet. Tie a treehugger to the tree 'e is huggin'. Preferably one with a knot 'ole so he can really get attached ta it. Ye 're assuming ye 'ave more power than ye really do. This orb will change into what it will no matter what ye do. Get a life! Contribute to an orphan or give a 'and to an oldster. That does more to save the planet than peein' in the ocean with this blather.
126

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 02:39:15
The most substantial and "greenest" contribution any individual can make is also one of the simplest. Simply do not have children. Any other contribution pales by comparison. Having even one child creates a legacy of consumption that will obliterate any and all "green" efforts that you could ever make in your own lifetime.
127

Pelon,

Pediatrics wing 13/01/2008 20:23:12
#141. Yea. That would be smart, wouldn't it? Certainly hope you will lead by example. You haven't actually had any children, have you? If you have, they are certainly the worse for it. Oh my, what a solution you present.
128

Coinneach,

22/01/2008 15:21:46
Someday we'll look back on all this and laugh like drains.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.