CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Rethink needed over Scottish carbon targets
(40 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
"
"This report sheds new light on this important issue enabling us to view low-carbon infrastructure from this economic perspective."
"
Sort of.
Probably not "new" to those who think about these things.
Problem is getting SG to change direction.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Whole thing pretty meaningless since they dropped the global footprint target. Can achieve Carbon target by getting energy intensive goods shipped in from other countries. If we afforested the whole of Scotland and bought in food grown on felled virgin rainforest, we would hit our carbon targets.
Still, any pressure against roads as the solution to all mobility problems is welcome.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Can achieve Carbon target by getting energy intensive goods shipped in from other countries."
Yep, which is why UK can be seen to be doing 'quite well'.
But still not particularly well!
I think there are 3 futures.
1) 'prove' it's all a load of nonsense (but reports now saying 'this is expected to be warmest year ever')
2) get Gov(s) to say "look folks things aren't going to turn out the way we 'promised' - more of better, for ever").
3) business as usual until it goes badly wrong (in the sense that people actually notice - at the moment it's 'we need austerity so things will be better in the future'...)
There is a 4th option - when CCE rules the world.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The report argues that it is better to build now for changed public choices and behaviour, travel patterns and energy efficiency standards rather than alter infrastructure when the changes have taken place.
They still don't get it, do they.
Changed public choices will not 'magically' come about, after which they can then alter the infrastructure. Instead they need to build infrastructure now for sustainable choices and the behaviour will follow.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The statement would be much stronger if it were written:
The report argues that it is better to build now in order to change public choices and behaviour, travel patterns and energy efficiency standards rather than alter infrastructure when the changes have taken place.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Also, you know how the roads lobby work...
"Oh, but we only need to build this bypass/airport connector/junction 'improvement'/dual-carriageway/'missing' motorway, and once that's done everything will be fine and then we can stop building roads."
Always one more, one more...
Posted 9 years ago # -
There is a 4th option - when CCE rules the world.
I remember the referendum thread! I don't think it will be that easy. :-)
Posted 9 years ago # -
@chdot
3) business as usual until it goes badly wrong (in the sense that people actually notice
That's what I'd be betting on.
I work in marketing, where it's well known that it's incredibly hard to sell prevention - even though, in most cases, prevention is a far better purchase than a cure.
As a generalisation, people in the west aren't going to be willing to give up their individual oil-propelled metal boxes for the sake of future generations...
And that includes parents of small children, who are likely to live long enough to pay the price for that.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
As a generalisation, people in the west aren't going to be willing to give up their individual oil-propelled metal boxes for the sake of future generations...
And that includes parents of small children, who are likely to live long enough to pay the price for that.
"
Think that's where we are at.
"it's incredibly hard to sell prevention"
Yes, which is presumably why Govs tend not to try (or do the 'why don't you walk' campaigns..)
So, "incredibly hard".
Is that the same as 'close to impossible'?
Posted 9 years ago # -
In general, I agree that the 'prevention message' is a difficult sell. But not impossible. There have been some quite effective public service TV messages in the past. Some relatively recent ones that spring to mind are, anti-smoking, and the AIDS/HIV awareness campaigns.
With the will, this approach would reap benefits in the 'green' area. Is there the will though.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Is that the same as 'close to impossible'?
Commercially, it's close to "financial suicide" as marketing costs almost always exceed the revenue generated.
For governments, it is possible to change behaviour.
But, in this case, the benefit would be so far down the road - and the person changing is getting very little direct benefit from their own sacrifices - that I'd conclude it's probably impossible.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Is that the same as 'close to impossible'?
Commercially, it's close to "financial suicide" as marketing costs almost always exceed the revenue generated.
Well, marketing is a lot of the problem in the first place, making a 5 year old model of car look absurdly old fashioned and undesirable; in comparison with a new one, which will make the owner instantly successful and sexually attractive.
Bill Hicks was right about people in marketing.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Bill Hicks was right about people in marketing."
Contains lots of swearing (as you'd expect) -
http://genius.com/Bill-hicks-on-advertisers-and-marketing-annotated
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Bill Hicks was right about people in marketing."
Interesting. You believe another member of this forum should kill himself?
Don't worry, I'm not going to take it personally. I think your comment is more a reflection of you than a reflection of me.
But, let me tell you a couple of things...
First, I saw Bill Hicks live. You know how I was able to see him live? It's because he made sure his gig was advertised.
Second, I have an mp3 somewhere of Hicks talking with Howard Stern. Hicks said he only did shows like Letterman because doing those shows got him better billing and better money - i.e. he did them as advertising.
So, all those people who hoot and holler with approval when Hicks said people in advertising should kill themselves missed the (obvious) point that Hicks himself made damn sure he was advertising himself.
(And that his promoters/bookers were advertising his shows.)
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Environment Secretary launches circular economy consultation.
"
http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Making-things-last-1c24.aspx
Posted 9 years ago # -
The problem with reports like this is that, were any heed taken of them, everything would already have been done decades ago. Obviously, it hasn't been - and it won't be, for as long as the bland, interchangeable political parties that take their turns running the show remain ideologically opposed to cycling infrastructure.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"remain ideologically opposed to cycling infrastructure"
That's only a small part of the problem.
remain ideologically in favour of 'personal' motor transport - petrol, diesel or electric
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
AN overhaul of Scotland's energy sector would create tens of thousands more jobs than currently exist in the oil and fossil fuels industry, new research claims.
"
Posted 9 years ago # -
The closure of Longannet power station cuts Scotland's carbon emissions by 15% in one go.
Longannet's annual CO2 emissions are 9.5 Mtonnes.
Agriculture is 12.4 Mt, domestic transport (not including international flights and shipping) is 10.5Mt, business and industry is 9.1 Mt, homes are 7.0 Mt and the rest of the energy generation sector (not including Longannet) is 6.5 Mt.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The closure of Longannet power station cuts Scotland's carbon emissions by 15% in one go.
Presumably we'll still be using the same amount of electricity. Is Longannet being replaced by something greener?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"homes are 7.0 Mt " is that non-electric home heating or building?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Amir - tha't just home heating and cooking etc. The building of them is classed under "development" and is an order of magnitude lower.
Presumably we'll still be using the same amount of electricity.
Indeed, but a/ it won't be booked under Scotland's carbon emmissions and b/ it won't be generated by new-build coal, it will be either from gas generation from south of the border or extra renewables. So inevitably some will be carbon for carbon, but certainly less carbon-intensive and polluting forms of carbon.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Adam McVey (@adamrmcvey)
06/08/2015 11:49
Today planning committee affirmed council policy AGAINST fracking. Incompatible with no. of sustainability policies. http://pic.twitter.com/xq8Tw6OlyF"
So that's CEC SNP, what about SG SNP?
Posted 9 years ago # -
So that's CEC SNP, what about SG SNP?
Following the moratorium announced in January, there's been no press releases on the SNP website.
Apparently UKIP were very upset that the SNP got chair of the Energy Committee at Westminster because of this.
As many a little bit more plugged into the Scottish Politics than Douglas Carswell suspect though, there will be substantial "it's Scotland's shale" elements within the SNP who are either ambivalent through enthusiastic about fracking.
I seem to recall Dave & Gideon were threatening (or the SNP claimed they were threatening) to over rule Holyrood anyway, at which point the SNP could come out as strongly anti-Fracking and let Westminster and the Tories take all the stick.
I'm not sure there's any prospective fracking sites/licences up for grabs in Edinburgh, however West Lothian is just next door and we share watercourses with them.
Posted 9 years ago # -
One today repeating moratorium-
"
“In government, the SNP has ensured that Scotland is at the forefront of environmental protection – legislating for world-leading climate change targets, significantly increasing renewable generation and placing a moratorium on fracking. The German decision shows that Scotland is now also leading Europe on GM crops.”
"
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/aug/snp-welcomes-german-gm-ban
Posted 9 years ago # -
An odd thing to mourn by andy a, on FlickrVisualisation of above figures.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Posted 9 years ago #
-
The closure of Longannet power station cuts Scotland's carbon emissions by 15% in one go.
Because Longannet is part of the European Trading Scheme for Carbon emissions, it is treated differently in ways too complex and dull to imagine. But in short, no it does not give an immediate boost to Scotland's measured performance.
Posted 9 years ago # -
So, all those people who hoot and holler with approval when Hicks said people in advertising should kill themselves missed the (obvious) point that Hicks himself made damn sure he was advertising himself.
That is as about a clever an argument as people who point to something you own that is plastic, and say that since you own it you MUST support drilling in the antartic/ fracking/ tar sands etc. That is, not at all clever.
Another similar stupid argument is "But, people go to Climate Change negotiations BY PLANE!!!!"
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
