The Royal Society of Edinburgh has just published a Report "Facing up to Climate Change: breaking the barriers to a low-carbon Scotland".
It presupposes that (man-made) Climate Change is a fact, despite there being thousands of scientists world wide who disagree.
Amongst the Primary Recommendations of the Report:-
1. The UK Government should urgently improve the infrastructure and management of the electricity grid in Scotland to optimise the development of renewable energy and to permit the export of surplus renewable energy.
2. The Scottish and UK Governments need to retrofit existing regulation to achieve a balance with the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Firstly, why should 'UK' (in effect non-Scottish) taxpayers subsidise Scotland's infrastructure to support the export of renewable energy? The desired objective is after all, to enable Scotland to then export and sell their 'surplus' renewable energy to England and Wales.
Secondly, although the committee is awash with Professors and Doctors, I wonder how many of them or their readers understand what they mean by "......retrofit existing regulation....."? An oxymoron, surely?
Does SR have any readers who can explain to me (a) what they think it means; and (b) what they think the RoySocEd think they mean?
A guest posting by Joe Public.
Posts
26 comments:
My government recognises the role that Scotland has to play in the production of renewable energy by means of hydro electric power. This is, after all, the only source of electricity that can be quickly and easily turned off and on.
We would encourage the development of this resource and then of course retrospectively increase taxation to pay for it. This is easily done by recalculating and reissuing last years tax demands.
F.U.
Most regulations and statutes are written so broadly and in such vague terms that they can be made to fit almost any desired outcome with just a slight twist of interpretation via a new ministerial guideline.
I think they mean "give us more money"
It's getting a bit weary right enough. Experts wanting us to throw billions away on a cruel scam. I suppose too many reputations are linked to the whole agw nonsense for them to be able to stop.
" why should 'UK' (in effect non-Scottish) taxpayers subsidise Scotland's infrastructure to support the export of renewable energy?"
Because the money from the export of renwable energy wouldn't go to Scotland. It would be a company like Scottish Power ( French) or some other such company who would profit. The 'renewables' are in Scotland and the UK would 'benefit' rather than Scotland. (Ok I know that no one would benefit in reality).Ed Milliband's Climate Bill 2008 has £20Bn earmarked to waste every year for the next 40 years on the scam.
" what they mean by "......retrofit existing regulation....."? "
I presume they mean that existing regulations are already in place that explain all the design requirements for upgraded power lines and interconnector design for cross border transmissions but that these have been ignored( probably due to the astronomic cost). They want to spend about £100Bn making sure that their designs are put in place and existing power lnes etc are replaced.
I have just wasted a considerable part of my monthly download allowance, 42.8Mb to be precise, in downloading the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s ‘Facing Up to Climate Change’ Report.
Even worse – I read the bloody thing!
I doubt I have ever before read such academic pomposity.
Total claptrap - deserves no further comment.
Does everyone know WattsUpWithThat won the best science blog of 2010?
Can you imagine a 'denier' blog winning such an accolade 5 years ago?
I'm with RMcGeddon on this, it is indeed getting wearisome, each and every public body feels the need to stick its oar in about climate change, possibly under outside pressure, probably in order to conform.
SR, I was aware of the science blog comp (and indeed voted for WUWT) but did not know the result so ta for that news. I check their site most days and it's good to note that they have not spent their time crowing about it.
FU @ 21:31
Ah, comments from a seasoned politician.
"This is, after all, the only source of electricity that can be quickly and easily turned off."
Apart that is, from the French, nuclear-fed, inter-connector.
@ Woodsy42 @ 22:17
So succinctly put. And, so true.
Ooops. Sorry. That should have been my response to MicroDave.
@Woodsy42 21:36
"Most regulations and statutes are written so broadly and in such vague terms that they can be made to fit almost any desired outcome ..."
Only when it suits the relevant authority.
Yes JP, try doing that with wind. More chance of farting in tune with Beethovens Fifth.
'Sean The Sheep' was on topic yesterday, farmer had wired up a wind generator. Adjustments by the sheep led to the inevitable. It did give some heat when burnt on the fire.
@ RMcG 22:36
"I suppose too many reputations are linked to the whole agw nonsense for them to be able to stop."
And careers, grants & livelihoods.
@ JRB 00:09
"I have just ....download(ed).... the ....Report.
Even worse – I read the bloody thing!"
That should qualify for a subscription to Masochists Anonymous.
I wonder how many folk have hard copies of it? And how many trees died in the process.
@ subrosa 00:43
It was uplifting to read of WUWT's success. Particularly as its main competitors had much wider readerships.
"Can you imagine a 'denier' blog winning such an accolade 5 years ago?"
WUWT has clearly demonstrated that it's not a 'denier', but a serious scientific counterbalance to 'warmist' theory.
@ banned 02:42
"...each and every public body feels the need to stick its oar in about climate change, possibly under outside pressure, probably in order to conform."
The technical term is: to receive taxpayer funding.
I will refrain from saying on a Scottish blog what the English are likely to think about any proposal to increase funding for Scotland, whatever the reason. But I'm sure most Scots know by now anyway!
@ EP 13:30
You mean some Sassenachs (& Welsh) would object to funding Scottish infrastructure just so the Scots could sell more electricity, at lower transmission costs to themselves, south of the border after they've gained independence?
No wonder the RoySocEd are promulgating it.
Why not amend existing legislation or pass new Acts instead? If the august members of the RoySocEd took the trouble to share a glass or two of claret with the clerks in the Scottish Parliament's Chamber Office, they might acquire a more credible understanding of the legislative process.
Joe said..
" so the Scots could sell more electricity, at lower transmission costs to themselves, south of the border after they've gained independence?"
You seem to be under the impression that our energy infrastructure is owned by the state Joe.
It's not. It was privatised in the 1980's by Thatcher. The 'national grid' is owned by Mr Li in Hong Kong who bought it off of EDF of France last year.
UK taxpayers ( yes Scotland is in the UK aswell so we would be dumped with the costs aswell) are being stitched up by 'climate change' nonsense to develop windfarms and wave power generators. The UK govt wants to have an integrated transmission system connecting the whole of the UK to the renewables in the north of Scotland.
Scotland wouldn't benefit because even if we did have control of the grid ( which we can't under privatisation) the energy that would be sold wouldn't cover the subsidies required to support the white elephant system of windmills and wave generators.
You don't have to be an expert to know this because Denmark, Germany and Spain have a 10 year start on us and they have thrown in the towel as they can no longer afford to pay the subsidies to keep the scam going.
A scam that has produced no reduction in CO2 and closed down no power stations.
The only thing Scotland would get out of the scam is a blighted landscape, destroyed natural habitat for birds and other wildlife, less tourism and an expensive clean up and dismantling operation when we finally switch back to conventional power.
@ Brian 22:11
So very true.
@ RMcG 22:51
Yes, of course.
So all those foreigners who own it, seed the idea to RoySocEd, that all UK taxpayers should fund their asset improvements.
Now that's what I call business.
Joe said..
" Yes, of course.
So all those foreigners who own it, seed the idea to RoySocEd, that all UK taxpayers should fund their asset improvements.
Now that's what I call business."
I've probably not made myself clear Joe.
The funding is already guaranteed with Ed Millibands £800Bn 40 year Climate Bill 2008.
Taxpayers all over the UK will pay to finance the climate change scam. Beating up individual countries scrambling for a share of the pie will only hurt us and not the government.
The Spanish, German and Danish companies have used up the patience of their own taxpayers so are now filling their boots at our expense.
The Beauly to Denny pylon scheme will have pylons up to 4 times the height of the existing ones and run across the most beautiful scenery in Scotland from north to south.
The foreign companies don't need to do any 'seeding' of ideas. Our govts are happy to splash out on a pointless exercise in waste without help from abroad. The Royal Society will join the IPCC and East Anglia Uni Climate Change Unit in folklore in 30 years time for their incompetence.
After reading your poorly researched article and smarmy replies to genuine commenters , hopefully SR won't extend her kindness to allow you to post articles in the future.
@ RMcG 10:47
It seems both our comments could have been clearer.
1. My "Yes, of course." comment was meant to imply agreement with your statement that the infrastructure is privately owned.
2. Consequently, I wonder why the RoySocEd's first recommendation be that "The UK Government should urgently improve the infrastructure....."?
[As opposed to say, the Scottish Government, or, the companies' shareholders.]
Joe
Ok sorry.
I just hate it when the waters get muddied by trying to make it some sort of north v south contest when we should all be sticking together in the common cause.
We've got the mad SNP, Royal Soc of Edinburgh etc.
You have similar loonies in England also pushing the agw scam.
It would suit them all down to the ground if we argued amongst ourselves while they help themselves to our money in their pro agw scam agenda.
@ RMcG 13:54
I knew we both sing off the same hymn sheet.
Post a Comment