Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

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.

Prize-winner tackles the issues of renewable energy meeting sustainable development



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: 29 September 2008
STEPHANIE Evans, a 22-year-old law graduate, has been named the first winner of the Colin Donald Prize for an environmental law essay.
She won the competition, run by the National Trust for Scotland and law firm McGrigors, with an essay on the relationship between renewable energy and the aim of sustainable development in Scotland.

In this exclusive extract for The Scotsman,
Stephanie discusses the implementation of the "polluter pays" principle

THE polluter pays principle is a component of sustainable development that has been incorporated into the Scottish renewable energy policy.

It envisages that the polluter should pay for damage caused by pollution or bear the costs of carrying out pollution prevention measures. The latter internalises the costs of pollution so that the price of goods and services reflect the true cost of production, including costs related to pollution, environmental harm and resource degradation.

These measures are to encourage rational use of scarce environmental resources to avoid adverse economic implications.

In accordance with the idea that the polluter should pay for damage caused by pollution, Ofgem may impose appropriate sanctions, including a fine where there is non-compliance with the Renewables Obligation Scotland (ROS).

Additionally, to encourage a low carbon economy, the Climate Change Levy (CCL) was implemented in the UK. The economic and political advantages include job growth and economic investment and it is evident the climate change levy prioritises economic and social considerations over environmental considerations.

This is demonstrated by the fact that the CCL applies to energy consumed in the public, commercial and agricultural sectors only, instead of applying to much higher emissions caused by the generation of household electricity.

The economic implications of imposing a CCL at domestic level were seen as too grave a risk.

Benjamin Richardson, of York University, argues that the exemption for the transport and household sectors means the levy will not enable long-term emission reductions. This could potentially result in a failure on the part of the UK to meet Kyoto targets.

It is evident that the polluter pays principle has been incorporated into our energy policy, but the economic climate in which renewables have emerged sits uneasily with the idea that delivery of sustainable energy supplies should be provided at a cost that does not cause damage and social regression.

The ROS is an illustration of such an obstacle, in that the regulatory burden imposed by it means that in order to provide additional support for the generation of electricity from renewable sources, costs to all electricity consumers are increased.

This could result in a disincentive for environmentally beneficial behaviour, as it penalises people who perform environmental services.

Beyond this, proposals by Ofgem to change the cost of connecting to the national grid would make it more expensive for generators located away from population centres.

This could be potentially detrimental to areas where the best resources are located, for example the Western Isles which has huge potential because of their natural resources for wind, wave and tidal power.





The full article contains 511 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 September 2008 8:29 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Unimpressed one,

29/09/2008 07:45:32
"It envisages that the polluter should pay for damage caused by pollution or bear the costs of carrying out pollution prevention measures."

Well if the essay is based on this piece of ignorance, it's probably not worth the paper it's printed on. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, it is a trace gas necessary for life to exist on this planet. The fact that levels were several times higher than present over the last few million years when temperatures were lower, proves their is no correlation between the earths's climate and concentrations of this gas. Still basic facts have never been necessary to sloppy journalism.
2

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 29/09/2008 08:45:14
Excess CO2 IS a pollutant!

The polluter pays is an outdated notion. It makes much more sense to PREVENT pollution (as otherise the polluter just passes the price he pays onto his prices so we ALL end up paying).
3

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 29/09/2008 10:01:00
There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is a 'cause' of global warming. The media and the MMGW hysterics have been bombarding the with propaganda for the last decade - to the effect that carbon dioxide is a 'dangerous' gas that somehow - magically - stores heat in our atmosphere. The truth is that is is arguably a RARE gas - constituting a tiny, tiny proportion of the planetary atmosphere. The facts are that Oxygen makes up 14% - Nitrogen about 80% and Argon is 1%. So where do you think CO2 is in this picture? Is it 10% ? No.
How about 5%? No. How about 1%? - still no. How about a tenth of one percent - no.

Well it make up just 400 parts in every MILLION units of atmosphere - or FOUR PARTS IN 10,000. That is less than a thirtieth of one per cent of the atmosphere - which arguably makes this gas 'rare'.

Try this experiment. Fill a swimming pool with 10,000 ping pong balls and then hide just FOUR red balls among them. Now go and try to find those four red balls.. it will take you a very long time. Carbon dioxide does not CAUSE global warming - it cannot: it is a stable, non reactive gas that we put in fizzy drinks. If planetary temperature goes up - there will be more plants, trees, plankton etc - and more of them will die and rot as they age. So warmer planet, more plants - more CO2. But the increase is a RESULT - not a cause. Carbon dioxide is very good for the planet - more crops, trees, plankton and plants.
4

seanie,

29/09/2008 10:19:47
The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been understood for over a century.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere."

Personal incredulity (and ignorance) do not a convincing argument make.
5

,

29/09/2008 10:47:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Unimpressed one,

29/09/2008 13:30:38
#4, "The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been understood for over a century."

If that was the case then we would see global temperatures matching concentrations of the gas. That's clearly NOT the case as you'll realise if you care to read the following:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5269
7

seanie,

29/09/2008 13:54:57
Drivel.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's been accepted science for over 100 years. It is not the only or even most significant greenhouse gas but it DOES CONTRIBUTE to the greenhouse effect.

That you do not even accept this very basic scientific fact revelas you as a fruitloop.
8

Unimpressed one,

29/09/2008 14:25:36
#7, You have to accept the fact that when concentrations were much higher than today, global temperatures have been estimated to be the same or lower than the present. Ergo, the link between CO2 and varying temperatures is not proven. Rudimentary common sense. If you are unwilling/unable to understand this basic fact then it's no wonder you're so gullible!
9

seanie,

29/09/2008 14:37:42
There are a considerable number of factors that influence the climate and their interaction is complex. But Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and contributes to the greenhouse effect. Denial of that is not 'common sense'. It's either ignorance, deceit or stupidity.
10

eyeswide,

30/09/2008 14:52:24
Ignorance, deceit or stupidity is leading some people to claim that CO2 drives temperatures not the opposite.

If it were just an opinion then great. But they want us to live in a cave based upon this supposition.

Yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:All_palaeotemps.png

Note the four ice-ages and how temperatures were then.


http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide_png

"Both measurements and models show considerable uncertainty and variation; however, all point to carbon dioxide levels in the past that have been significantly higher than they are at present."


http://i35.tinypic.com/2rh4fbb.gif

Speaks for itself.


http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/Geological_Timescale_op_927x695.jpg

Elaboration on the above.


11

seanie,

30/09/2008 15:34:30
The world is warming.
12

eyeswide,

30/09/2008 16:41:46
Not according to the Ministry of Defence(sorry HadleyMet)

Seed article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/22/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange

"The new research confirms that the world has cooled slightly since 2005"

"Vicky Pope of the Met Office said the new research was in response to high-profile claims made by Lawson the former chancellor, and others that the recent cooling showed that fears of climate change are overblown, and that temperatures are unlikely to rise as high as predicted." She said: "It has confused people. We got a lot of emails asking whether global warming had stopped and it prompted us to look at the data again."

"Despite the recent cooling, average temperatures are still rising at 0.09C per decade, the office says - down from the record 0.33C per decade measured during the 1990s."

"The evidence is clear, the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last."

Spin 0.09 into 0.33 again for us please. Did CO2 levels drop at the same precipitous rate over the same period?
13

seanie,

30/09/2008 16:53:47
Wait for the next El Nino.
14

eyeswide,

30/09/2008 17:13:09
That is still beside the point.

Check here for why 100ths of a degree are meaningless:

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/sht-frm-lindzen.html

As it happens the above "blog" by a Real Climate(there, I said it) believer just goes to show how the censorship works.

The title is a perfect ad hom. The argument gets too much for the "owner" and he cuts out the bits that create dissonance.

Just like his owners at RC.

Here:

http://arxiv.org/ptf/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

is a paper from the aforementioned Richard S. Lindzen

(Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 19, 2008)


You would need to reverse the /ptf/ in the above address as the censorbot here is stupid


but here is part of the paper

15

eyeswide,

30/09/2008 17:13:24
"For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of."

16

eyeswide,

30/09/2008 17:17:22
Evoking La Niña, El Niño or any oceanic events now, when up until very recently "natural" oscillation was totally ruled out, is bluster and obfuscation and smacks of subterfuge, not to say panic. Same as changing global warming to climate change.

These ocean/atmosphere heat transferral mechanisms are occurring so why does CO2 fail to warm the oceans during La Niñas? If they just swap heat from the sea to the air there is no increase in total heat therefore CO2 is innocent as charged.

The whole "CO2 causes warming" is political.

When the hammer comes down the public will have been "prepared" by the Ministry of Defence(Hadley Met) and NASA(Pentagon) and the sheeple will all just "know" that the war is over resources and climate. We had to do it guvnor, before it was done unto us.

This is why I keep kicking. Supposedly intelligent people, who could be helping rather than hindering, have been brainwashed. This fascinates me. How could a scientist in any field allow this abberant mashup of lies and statistics lead them to conclude that anything other than faud is being committed? Plenty do. Not all of them funded by government. I can see how environmentalists could fall in love with the phantom menace as their guilt at using anything in the world has driven them to believe that they (we) are not natural and deserve to die.
17

seanie,

30/09/2008 18:48:04
It's been pointed out repeatedly to you that natural variation, month to month and year to year, is considerable. The natural scope for variability is greater than the underlying warming trend. Global warming doesn't mean that each year will be warmer than the last. The data is "noisy".

2005 was a very hot year. The warmest year on record according to NASA and the second warmest according to Hadley. Given the natural scope for variability (and events such as the La Nina that developed late last year) finding significance in the fact that the subsequent years have been cooler is fundamentally silly. If the next few years continue to be cooler then it will become significant. But at the moment it's just daft.

18

eyeswide,

30/09/2008 20:11:28
I do not need anyone to point out the obvious thank you.

I am not arguing about temperatures by the way. CO2 is the stick we are being beaten with. The science of CO2 will be the undoing of this piratical assault on reason, instinct, industry and economy.

I do not care if it DOES warm up by a couple degrees. It will not do so because of CO2. It MAY do so because of the very natural variation that the watermelons have dismissed until recently. 2 extra degrees C would be wonderful for mankind. 1000ppmv of extra CO2 would be wonderful for mankind - via the biosphere. Neither is going to happen any time soon. Shame really.

The science (so far) claims that CO2 will follow temperatures. When it gets very cold we shall see.

Check the AIRS:

http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0817/2008GL035022/


19

seanie,

30/09/2008 21:10:08
For someone who's not arguing about the temperatures, you seem to spend a good deal of time arguing about the temperatures.
20

eyeswide,

30/09/2008 23:14:27
Global warming. Achilles heel.

21

seanie,

01/10/2008 10:08:47
http://xkcd.com/386/

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.