´óÏó´«Ã½

Ultimately, of course, this is not solely a Scottish problem. The UK seems to have set itself legally binding carbon reduction targets that are going to prove impossible to achieve. Quite what happens then might prove entertaining; which authority has the legal powers to take the government to task for failing to meet one of its own targets?

Now I am not to going to start arguing the rights and wrongs of the existence of climate change, much less mans' activities contributing to it, but I have a very strong feeling that governments (and not just in the UK) have been sucked into kneejerk reactions to prognostications of imminent doom by others who may very well have their own axes to grind.

Now although the private car is seen as a major factor in the generation of carbon emissions, if we all decided to reduce our car use by (say) 50% there would be an immediate drop in the tax revenue to the Treasury. Is that really what politicians want? If we were able to keep to that limit it might also mean that we kept our cars for longer, which would meean that fewer cars would be sold. Oops; less tax for the Treaury and fewer jobs in the car manufacturing business. It is, of course, typical of politicians that they should see car use as a "problem", without bothering to find out why people are using those cars in the first place; there seems to be an automatic assumption that most or all car use is "frivolous", whereas I take the view that no - one in their right mind would willingly launch themselves into a queue of traffic every day unless there was a good underlying reason.

Carbon dioxide emission is (as things stand) an inevitable consequence of our lives, and effecting a significant reduction will only be achieved by a complete change in how we lead our lives; I take the view that no such change is likely, because it would result in governments having to make do with less (tax / growth / jobs / etc) and that just seems too unlikely to happen. The activities that generate carbon dioxide are so deeply embedded in the entire "economy" that they cannot be targeted without having a serious effect on the economy as a whole; to think otherwise is indicative of rigidly compartmentalised thinking, which is of course a speciality of politicians.

"... fewer car parking spaces to discourage drivers from taking their cars into town or work."

Won't that cause people to drive around our city centres for longer until they find a space, causing more congestion, pollution and more fuel use?!

Recent discussions advocate an easy way to reduce fuel consumption is to eco-manage a fleet and better educate drivers; however it is debatable whether sending drivers with years of experience and habits, will benefit or even take any notice of a course of this nature.

There are various tactics which can be employed however a good long-term option is to look at the type of fuel that you fill your engine with.

There are fuels on the market which have been tested and proven to lower wastage and improve fuel efficiency. Particularly for business surely changing the fuel that is put in the tank is much easier way to reduce emissions, than having to retrain a driver.

"15,000 hectares of new woodland each year.... that's nearly 15,000 maximum-sized football pitches each year"
A standard IFAB football pitch is 105 x 68m, or 0.718 hecatres. So that's just over 21,000 football pitches.

That's an extremely thought-provoking comparison.

Now all we need to do is to find somebody to pay £80 billion to buy Wales and close it down. This is an all-round winner. No more pestilential conifers marring the landscape; no more Songs of Praise; even watching rugby down the pub would be more enjoyable. Oh, and we could even re-use the pits in the valleys for carbon storage.

Who'd buy such a concept? Well, I can think of at least one large petrochemical multinational with deep pockets and a desperate need to make an eco-statement.

Trying to be constructive: Both Scotland and Wales have sources of green energy in their wind, waves, streams and rivers. I know someone in Wales who was thinking of installing a 1.5kW wind power scheme with a 3 metre windmill system for £1000. Good idea, unfortunately planning permission for the scheme was to cost £300. It seems planning authorities are there to deter eco systems not to encourage them. Needless to say he is abandoning the scheme.

It would help if the Scottish Parliament made sure that certain agencies that they fund didn't spout out nonsense to the general public about the notion.

Once such piece of rubbish is the notion that driving more slowly saves fuel. Indeed, not all that long ago you were given that advice on those electronic variable message signs on the side of Scottish roads and also received such profoundly wrong advice from the government-funded Energy Saving Trust (Scotland).

Thankfully, they have now both changed their tune. But how can you trust agencies that get it sooooooo wrong?

[For clarity, the issue of saving fuel (and pollution) is not connected to your road speed, it's connected to your engine speed. Basically - leaving aside engines which are labouring or are running at very high revs - approxiamately speaking, each time your engine turns over it uses the same amount of fuel. Therefore, if you do, say, 20 miles at 50 mph in sixth gear you do it at pretty low revs so you use fuel fairly efficiently. Do the same distance and speed in fifth, your fuel consumption will go up just because your engine is turning over that many more times, and in fourth it'll be even more again. Note that you're not covering any more distance OR getting there any faster/slower!]

Slow down and save fuel? - COMPLETE MYTH.