I have to admit to being a bit of a sceptic where climate change is concerned, but green issues do make sense to me.
Today Jim Mather, Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, will visit Fife Energy Park where he will announce £13million of new funding.
The cash, approved by the board of Scottish Enterprise, is earmarked to upgrade the quayside and undertake coastal protection works at the 134-acre former Kvaerner oil fabrication yard at Methil.
This investment is part of Scotland's drive to secure a significant share of the UK offshore wind market, estimated to be worth £19 billion and to have the potential of creating more than 800 jobs and up to £198 million in gross value add (GVA) over the next 10 years.
Fife Energy Park was identified as a key project by the Scottish Government to receive accelerated funding during 2009/10 as part of its economic recovery programme responding to the current recession.
Mr Mather said further developing the park would create hundreds of local jobs. "We want all areas of Scotland to be able to fully harness our vast potential for cheap, clean and green electricity."
Any sensible project which enables electricity to be clean and cheaper will be welcomed in Scotland. We pay more per unit than England at present. Well done the Scottish government.
Source: Courier
Posts
11 comments:
Can't agree with your last comment about Any project which enables electricity to be clean and cheaper will be welcomed in Scotland
There are more important issues than clean and cheap. See my blog on the Cushnie Wind Farm
I will qualify that by adding the word 'sensible' before project. :)
Aye I've read your Cushnie Wind Farm post but this money is going on offshore projects not onshore.
Awthings possible in the Kingdom.
Fitaloon
Was interested in your blog regarding the wind farm. I recently travelled across the Barvas Moor in Lewis where the proposed wind-mill site was supposed to be situated.
I noticed that the moor is littered with hundreds of ugly eye-sore electricity/telephone cables.
Whilst not being sure of the residual effects of wind-farms from a scenic point of view they would be much easier on the eye than the present situation.
I have to admit to being a bit of a sceptic where climate change is concerned
Scepticism is an admirable trait and always to be encouraged. In this context though, you're rather in the position of the punter who loses money on a horse twice - once on the race, and again on the TV replay. Faith can be taken too far.
That human activity increases carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is certainly true and undisputed. That higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of a planet lead to higher temperatures on that planet, e.g Venus (Astronomy 101) is also undisputed. But there is one planet where these otherwise immutable laws seem not to apply - this one. Don't you wonder why that might be?
Why not apply a little of your scepticism to the motives of the climate change deniers - is it not just a little bit conceivable that they'd rather fuck the planet over than erode next year's profits? Are you wholly satisfied that BP, Unocal, Gazprom and their ilk are all lovely, throroughly altruistic people, and such an accusation could never be true?
With regard to Vronsky, when humanity manages to get CO2 to the levels of Venus perhaps you may have a point, however as CO2 does not drive climate change at the levels you seem to believe and the planet is currently going through a cooling phase, perhaps it is the deniers who have a greater grasp of reality than the warmists.
Except the people waking up to the fact their MP is a hopeless PM scunnert.
Vronsky I have applied my scepticism to both sides of the argument, neither convinces me. Perhaps it's because of the motives of most of the parties, as you say self-interest and bad backgrounds don't make for convincing facts.
Quiet man, what concerns me most of all is the complete split in the scientific evidence. Then when you analyse the scientists' history it's only to find they're all in the pay of one side or another.
This is a position I find myself in; finding both sides plausible and convinced by neither.
It does bother me a tad that our side of the 'sphere is so united in the 'it's all a hoax' echochamber. It has the ring of dogma about it.
My only drama with the whole global warming issue is it's political subversion into an excuse for further sweeping taxation for no good end.
You're a kindred spirit SaltedSlug.
Post a Comment