Your reports of the Scottish Government’s proposals for 30 new draft regulations to help “save the planet” and the accompanying leading article largely miss the real point, which is that there is nothing the UK, let alone Scotland, could realistically do in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to offset global warming (War on the car, News, September 5).
The bizarre notion of a “war on the car” is a subterfuge for increasing taxes, to help reduce our politician-engendered national debts. However, as fossil fuel supplies are finite, the quest for economy in their consumption is essential. In order to stimulate industry and pay our way, rational, constructive use of our assets is vital. If we continue to squander our money and efforts in the vain, self-deluding hope of ameliorating world climate change, our chances of climbing out of our vast debts will be much reduced.
The well-intentioned, but insanely expensive, Climate Change Act (2008) should now, therefore, be repealed. At the very least, our Scottish Nationalist Government should declare our nation’s independence of the act, to the greater benefit of Scotland.
(Dr) Charles Wardrop
Perth
Your “War on the Car” feature (Sunday Herald, September 5) interestingly outlined our Scottish Government’s plans to meet its world-beating 42% emissions reduction target by 2020. While it was good to see some tough proposals, I’m unconvinced that car use would be sufficiently curbed through incentives such as improved public transport or taxation (eg car use per mile). Such an approach will not result in the level of behavioural change needed to meet our target.
Some form of carbon reduction system is necessary. This could firstly either involve a “cap and share” system. This would address raw material production at source, whereby fossil fuel companies would have to buy permits to cover emissions relating to fuels sold. They would buy these from you and me, with everyone issued the same number of free fossil fuel usage emission permits -- limited to overall cap.
The other approach is based upon us having the same annual limit of energy use, which could be monitored by issuing everyone with a “carbon card”. Someone who hadn’t used their quota could sell surplus to someone who had. The sooner the likes of WWF and Friends of the Earth start lobbying for one or other of such approaches the better.
Alan Drever
Achnacloich, Isle of Skye
Culture change consistency
Last weekend’s essay (Life doesn’t have to be this way, Opinion, September 5) was a thought-provoking appeal for us to use financial constraints to scale back on our planet-destroying economy. Your leader was a compelling call to action on the need for culture change to achieve a sustainable Scotland (We must change our lives, not just our driving habits).
Stirring stuff. But your Business Comment (Taking stock of housebuilding) was a fairly straightforward endorsement of the housebuilding industry’s plea to get back to business as usual, presumably building yet more homes that are far bigger than we need, in places that lock us into late 20th-century travel patterns. I am not sure pick and mix policies are going to do the trick any more.
Gavin Corbett
Edinburgh
Blair’s benefit to humankind
Your letters and opinion columns never disappoint in providing material for debate and last weekend was no exception. Iain Macwhirter informs us that Labour is heading for “an electoral black hole” (Trekkies to boldly lead Labour Party electoral black hole, Opinion, September 5), but neglects to set out much evidence for this belief, beyond the fact that “they are all young and ... inexperienced”. Well, David Cameron’s pre-parliamentary experience was as a PR man for the now-defunct TV company Carlton and then as special adviser to Norman Lamont: not the widest CV. Of course, it’s far easier to make cheap jokes about Star Trek than to address the real issues, such as Ed Balls’s Bloomberg speech on August 27, the most detailed analysis of the British economy by any politician in recent years. Then we have Alexander McKay (Blair has been proven right, Letters) proclaiming Tony Blair as “one of the great British prime ministers”. If he was so great, and felt Gordon Brown would be “a total disaster as Prime Minister”, shouldn’t he have tried to stop Brown’s accession, and doesn’t his praise of Brown when handing over office to him show him to be a hypocrite?
Bill Redmond
Edinburgh
I wonder if Alexander McKay thinks the million or so dead Iraqi civilians would consider the removal of Saddam to be “of great benefit to humankind”, but then I suppose it depends which section of humankind Mr McKay considers of value.
James Hunt
Tayvallich, Lochgilphead
Kilwinning argument
I doubt very much if Prior/Abbot/Bishop Bernard, better known as Bernard of Linton, is buried at Kilwinning (Hunt is on for lost remains of bishop who wrote Declaration of Arbroath, News, September 5). As Chancellor of Scotland from 1307, he ceased to be Prior -- not Abbot -- of Kilwinning in 1309 when he became Abbot of Arbroath and then, from 1329, Bishop of the Isles, until his death in 1331, when he had been away from Kilwinning for some 24 years. As the Bishopric of the Isles had a somewhat shadowy existence, it is just possible that Bernard as Bishop was based at Snizort in Skye for the last two years or so of his life and was buried thereabouts. The Tironensian foundation at Kilwinning from 1162 was originally a Priory and a dependency of Kelso Abbey and did not achieve Abbey status until 1409.
Dr Alexander S Waugh
Banchory
Unlikely bedfellows
Although I don’t share Ian Bell’s atheistic convictions, I find myself concurring with much of what he writes regarding the current debate about Stephen Hawking’s new book (God or gravity, does it matter?, September 5). It is a constant source of puzzlement that, in the supposedly scientifically literate United Kingdom, there is much public confusion surrounding the relationship between science and religion.
Professor Richard Dawkins is quite right about creationism. Of course no-one in their right mind would believe the biblical version of events, but he is surely missing the point. All scientists accept the principle of falsifiability as the criterion of a proper theory. Religion comes in the realm of metaphysics, since it doesn’t make predictions that can be tested. Therefore, no conflict exists logically between science and religion.
Paul Mallinson
Glasgow
Biofuels aren’t only answer
Joanna Blythman made a very thoughtful point when she highlighted the problems incurred if we replace fossil fuels with biofuels (It’s a delusion to believe we can just replace oil, Opinion, September 5). However, there is another solution. A new technology is being developed by engineers which allows us to turn the sunshine of the world’s deserts into energy. It’s called solar thermal power and involves massive mirrors which concentrate solar energy to produce high temperatures which can be used to turn water into steam to drive turbo alternators.
They could produce electricity to be transmitted from the deserts to centres of population by high voltage direct current grids, possibly using superconductors, or alternatively hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water to be transmitted by pipelines for transport purposes by cars using fuel cells. It would require only one-tenth of one desert -- say, the Sahara -- with solar power stations working at only 10% efficiency to supply the entire energy needs of the world.
Kerr MacGregor
Scottish Solar Energy Group
Midlothian
A senseless animosity
The boycott of Israeli goods by Muslim shopkeepers is regrettable (Anti-Israel Boycott by Muslim shops goes Scotland-wide). Mixing politics and religion in this negative way has already caused immense suffering across the Muslim world, notably in Iran, Pakistan, Gaza and Afghanistan. It brings to the surface a disturbing sense of motivation in anti-Israel sentiment and action. The first war to be launched against the new state of Israel was loudly declared to be a jihad and was fought in the main for religious reasons.
Today, Hamas, the Iranian regime, al-Qaeda, and millions of other Muslims declare their hatred of Israel and their wish to see it destroyed in religious terms: Jews are unbelievers who have no right to rule over territory that was once ruled by Islam. This is a longstanding legal ruling that has no place in the modern world. Few things have done more harm to the Palestinians across the years. By taking this stance, Scotland’s Muslims simply reinforce an animosity that does good to no-one, least of all themselves.
Dr Denis MacEoin
Newcastle upon Tyne
