Poor climate for delaying green bill Guest vocals, by Sarah Boyack IT'S NOT been a good week for the Scottish environment. The SNP programme for government was a huge disappointment to climate change campaigners as we discovered a promised Scottish climate change bill will be delayed for at least a year.
The UK government is now powering ahead with plans to deliver reductions in CO2 emissions with a draft bill published in March this year and the establishment of an independent climate change committee dedicated to implementing the Stern Report on tackling climate change.
Alex Salmond's explanation rested on the requirement to produce a regulatory impact assessment - something not slowing down the SNP's bill to abolish bridge tolls.
Not only has a climate change bill been kicked into the long grass, but SNP ministers said they will oppose my member's bill on energy efficiency and microgeneration. Although John Swinney, cabinet secretary for finance and sustainable development, said he is interested in the proposals, he has not guaranteed that key measures will not be dropped.
The bill aims to reduce fuel poverty and tackle climate change by providing tax incentives to householders and businesses with one-off reductions in council tax and business rates if they install energy-efficiency and microgeneration devices in existing buildings. It would also require all new buildings to include some form of microgeneration to enable people to produce their own heat and power and see their bills reduce.
The bill is very much in tune with SNP announcements on low-carbon buildings, but rhetoric needs to be turned into reality.
My bill is backed by a wide range of groups, such as Barnardos, WWF and Energy Action Scotland, who have come together to ensure action in the Scottish parliament. It also has the support of 51 MSPs from every party at Holyrood.
The ball is now in the Scottish government's court. If we are going to play our part in tackling climate change we need to start now, not next year.
This autumn's budget review would be a practical place to start, but so far SNP ministers have only committed to including a "greener" approach, not the tougher approach of carbon reduction targets across government.
We cannot afford for Scotland to lag behind the rest of the UK. The challenge is both for the new SNP government and for the Scottish parliament to make sure we don't let that happen.
|
|
Posted by: Mac, Dundee on 7:05am Sun 9 Sep 07
Labour government's own UK target of cutting CO2 by 20 per cent by 2010 will be missed.
The Labour government's target of reducing UK C02 emissions by at least 26 per cent by 2020 is likely to be only half that.
Long term Labour government target of cutting UK CO2 by 60 per cent by 2050 is now in serious doubt.
Renewables target of providing 10 per cent of UK electricity by 2010 from renewable sources such as wave power will be missed by a wide margin.
Now tell me Sarah what is all this nonsense about Scotland lagging behind the rest of the UK.
Labour government's own UK target of cutting CO2 by 20 per cent by 2010 will be missed.
The Labour government's target of reducing UK C02 emissions by at least 26 per cent by 2020 is likely to be only half that.
Long term Labour government target of cutting UK CO2 by 60 per cent by 2050 is now in serious doubt.
Renewables target of providing 10 per cent of UK electricity by 2010 from renewable sources such as wave power will be missed by a wide margin.
Now tell me Sarah what is all this nonsense about Scotland lagging behind the rest of the UK.
Posted by: art1000, Dunfermline on 9:28am Sun 9 Sep 07
Sarah omits to tell us why her London Labour cronies like Broon and Darling scuppered the Peterhead carbon capture scheme out of spite against Alex Salmond.
Also Sarah, why did your lot do f*** all over this last 8 years of numpty rule on C02 emissions in Scotland?
What did your lot do about increasing electrification of transportation, tidal power promotion, CHP plants, insulation in new properties, reducing packaging, promotion of rail, water borne and sea-freight alternatives, waste reduction, etc, etc.
Do you know what acronyms like PHEV, VTG mean? I bet you dont.
As for Bridge tolls - removing congestion at the Bridge tolls will probably save overall on C02 by avoiding recurring tailbacks. Traffic volumes will probably be about the same.
You are just a NuLab numpty. Stop trying to lecture to the rest of us.
Sarah omits to tell us why her London Labour cronies like Broon and Darling scuppered the Peterhead carbon capture scheme out of spite against Alex Salmond.
Also Sarah, why did your lot do f*** all over this last 8 years of numpty rule on C02 emissions in Scotland?
What did your lot do about increasing electrification of transportation, tidal power promotion, CHP plants, insulation in new properties, reducing packaging, promotion of rail, water borne and sea-freight alternatives, waste reduction, etc, etc.
Do you know what acronyms like PHEV, VTG mean? I bet you dont.
As for Bridge tolls - removing congestion at the Bridge tolls will probably save overall on C02 by avoiding recurring tailbacks. Traffic volumes will probably be about the same.
You are just a NuLab numpty. Stop trying to lecture to the rest of us.
Posted by: David Nummey, London on 10:16am Sun 9 Sep 07
I am an SNP supporter, but I think Ms Boyack is making some good points in this article.To me, she comes across as one of the best Labour MSP's. Climate change issues do need to be addressed. And there are some very tough decisions ahead for politicians.
However, the party political aspect (ie Browns Labour machine is powering forward on this issue? Ho Ho) just undercuts her points. The Labour Party in Scotland has been in power for 50 years, did very little on this issue, and now Ms Boyack expects that the first ever SNP Government - a minority administration with far greater expectations on it than either of the two previous Lab-Lib coalitions - will 'sort it out' within its first 4 months.
I am an SNP supporter, but I think Ms Boyack is making some good points in this article.To me, she comes across as one of the best Labour MSP's. Climate change issues do need to be addressed. And there are some very tough decisions ahead for politicians.
However, the party political aspect (ie Browns Labour machine is powering forward on this issue? Ho Ho) just undercuts her points. The Labour Party in Scotland has been in power for 50 years, did very little on this issue, and now Ms Boyack expects that the first ever SNP Government - a minority administration with far greater expectations on it than either of the two previous Lab-Lib coalitions - will 'sort it out' within its first 4 months.
Posted by: Dr Coles, Los Angeles on 4:42pm Sun 9 Sep 07
The 100 year old con http://www.InteliOrg
.com/archive/Fireand
Ice.pdf on climate change.
In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg
.com/
The 100 year old con http://www.InteliOrg
.com/archive/Fireand
Ice.pdf on climate change.
In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg
.com/
Posted by: Ross, Edinburgh on 5:37pm Mon 10 Sep 07
It is certainly true that action on climate change is one of the more serious casulaties of the SNP's extremely light legislative programme. Whatever their past performance, the UK Government has published a draft climate change bill which is more than can be said for the SNP Executive. Yet another example of the reality of SNP in government being miles apart from their rhetoric in opposition, and judging by the barrage of vitriol above, their supporters know it.
It is certainly true that action on climate change is one of the more serious casulaties of the SNP's extremely light legislative programme. Whatever their past performance, the UK Government has published a draft climate change bill which is more than can be said for the SNP Executive. Yet another example of the reality of SNP in government being miles apart from their rhetoric in opposition, and judging by the barrage of vitriol above, their supporters know it.
Posted by: Debbie, Edinburgh on 10:01am Mon 17 Sep 07
Oh dear 'Dr' Coles. Intellegent readers should note that the chemical formula of carbon dioxide is written CO2 (2 subscript) NOT CO2 (2 superscript). That would indicate the oxygen atom is somehow 'squared'. Once you've grasped this lesson in high school chemistry we can begin with the rest of the nonsense on your link page.
Oh dear 'Dr' Coles. Intellegent readers should note that the chemical formula of carbon dioxide is written CO2 (2 subscript) NOT CO2 (2 superscript). That would indicate the oxygen atom is somehow 'squared'. Once you've grasped this lesson in high school chemistry we can begin with the rest of the nonsense on your link page.
Posted by: Chas, Edinburgh on 3:33am Fri 11 Apr 08
Ms Boyack is either ill informed or prefers to dismiss reality. Sticking wind turbines or PVs on all new homes will be a waste of resources and money for most homes in towns and cities - they won't produce enough, the embodied energy far outweighs CO2 savings, and the payback periods are ridiculous. Micro CHP is only efficient where there is almost constant demand for heat and power - that's not how most people live. This romance with bolt-on technologies is a diversion from the real issues. [bold]Micro-generation is an inefficient and expensive way to try to reduce CO2 emissions.[/bold] The SNP must focus on [bold]large scale projects and local energy generation centres[/bold] - otherwise it will simply continue years of Labour greenwash, wasted opportunities, and lack of investment in infrastructure. Oh, and it would help if Energy policy was devolved ...
Ms Boyack is either ill informed or prefers to dismiss reality. Sticking wind turbines or PVs on all new homes will be a waste of resources and money for most homes in towns and cities - they won't produce enough, the embodied energy far outweighs CO2 savings, and the payback periods are ridiculous. Micro CHP is only efficient where there is almost constant demand for heat and power - that's not how most people live. This romance with bolt-on technologies is a diversion from the real issues.
Micro-generation is an inefficient and expensive way to try to reduce CO2 emissions. The SNP must focus on
large scale projects and local energy generation centres - otherwise it will simply continue years of Labour greenwash, wasted opportunities, and lack of investment in infrastructure. Oh, and it would help if Energy policy was devolved ...
Comment | Read Comments (7)
Print this story
Email to a friend
