SIR, – What a great column from your contributor Derek Lord on the climate change debate. I could not agree more about the fact that our government has now accepted the climate change argument wholesale and has set its “world leading targets” on renewables, which are supposed to address the issue.
What is happening is that taxpayers and energy users are subsidising uneconomic programmes of research and development (R&D) in the case of all the offshore developments, which are predominately at the R&D stage.
We are also subsidising every wind turbine that is springing up across Aberdeenshire at the moment through an imaginary market in carbon credits and their Renewable Obligation Certificates.
This market is soon to be superseded by another which will be equally unfathomable and, if nothing else, bad economics.
All this is bound to lead us to having very expensive energy for both domestic use and for industry, which will put the whole country at an economic disadvantage and will surely prohibit growth in the medium and long term.
As Derek rightly points out, we have colossal coal reserves which are easily recoverable and a cheap source of energy.
David Chalmers,
Ben Eighe,
Delgaty, Turriff.
SIR, – After Derek Lord’s column (the Press and Journal, November 27), I can only suggest that he is an ostrich with his head buried in the sand of complacency. He has mustered the opinions of those few who oppose the concept of global warming being caused by the emission of greenhouse gases. This is to be set against the vast majority of equally reputable climatologists who are satisfied that there is a real risk associated with the prospect of increasing global temperatures.
The source of heat to the Earth is solar radiation and this does vary in cycles. Until the Industrial Revolution, these variations were the natural response of the Earth’s ecosystem. Records clearly illustrate that warm periods have coincided with increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is no scientific doubt that CO2 traps outgoing heat radiated from the Earth and reflects it back, causing warming.
Given the worldwide retreat of glaciers and the reduction and thinning of ice-caps, there is every evidence that there is a rise in global temperatures. The immediate concern is that the reduction in areas of ice and snow – which reflect the sun’s radiation back into space – will exacerbate the problem and move the world to an increasing rate of warming.
F.C.H Nisbet,
Lochloy Road,
Nairn.
SIR, – I have to write to offer some support to Neil Dunbar’s letter (November 27) about global warming.
I am also at a loss to understand why it is that the only opinion being voiced is the one that supports the concept of global warming.
I know there are many eminent experts who disagree with this, yet their evidence is rarely, if ever, given any public credibility.
It is almost as if there are vested interests in suggesting that global warming is fact and yet there is only speculation and probability.
I have seen it reported that with the improvement of the analysis techniques and data quality, the probability of anything other than natural cyclical climate change is actually on the decrease.
The one thing that is certain is the way that a belief of “he who shouts the loudest must be right” has given governments across the world a huge taxation stick with which to beat us under the guise of an ethical and morally responsible policy. It is difficult to see what moral high ground could be taken for taxation purposes if the whole thing was a myth.
Let us see both sides of the argument and keep an open mind until we can be sure. And can we stop using taxation as a punishment for daring to hold an opposing, equally well-researched view?
Nigel Brazier,
Kennel Cottage,
Lairshill,
Newmachar.
SIR, – Recently, there are signs that at last a debate is opening up on whether global warming – if it exists at all – is caused by mankind.
A recent survey showed that 59% of UK residents don’t believe it. The “Climategate” scandal seems to show that researchers are massaging their statistics.
It’s time for us all to make sure we are heading in the right direction; the counter arguments are at least worth examining, and we are witnessing increasingly surreal misuses of scarce resources masquerading as alternative energy projects.
One example is the go-ahead for a £22million “biogas” facility to recycle the 576,000 tonnes of uneaten food produced in Scotland every year (the Press and Journal, November 24). This will provide electricity to 2,800 homes at a capital cost per home of £7,000. If we didn’t waste food, we wouldn’t need the biogas recycling.
Allan Sutherland,
1 Willow Row,
Stonehaven.
SIR, – Alex Brewster’s comments (the Press and Journal, November 28) on electronic sheep identification (EID) did not explain the causes for concern that many sheep farmers have.
Mr Brewster is correct in his belief that EID is beneficial as a flock recording tool, aimed at improving the productivity and, hopefully, the profitability of sheep farmers’ flocks. But EID as a method of recording the movement of sheep is an altogether different scenario.
As for Mr Brewster’s comment that “tag loss was a small issue”, in most years, in my flock of about 800 ewe lambs taken through to the gimmer stage, I would expect to have to replace the ear tags in 100-150 sheep. This, to me, is not a small issue.
It would appear that if I were to move my flock, or parts of my flock, from one temporary grazing to another, I would have needed, on each occasion, to move the entire EID-associated equipment to the departing location, and set it all up, ready to start “recording” the proposed movement of my sheep.
It would be so much more practical to herd the flock into a corner, load them into a trailer and move them under the current batch-movement legislation. Any sheep that were noticed to have an ear tag missing could be caught and a red replacement tag inserted in their ear.
Angus Jacobsen,
Grange of Kinneff,
Inverbervie.
SIR, – Your report (November 26) about rally driver Raymond Munro suing for £2million following a crash has left me very disillusioned about a driver I much respected.
In my younger days, I also competed in rallying when budgets were realistic and cars were comparable.
Mr Munro, like myself, entered competitions knowing that motorsport is dangerous.
No one in their right mind puts 100% commitment into pace notes not tried or tested by themselves or their navigator.
It’s strange that all the other drivers in this rally negotiated this bend without crashing.
Come on, Raymond, restore your credibility and drop the case.
Iain MacColl,
Nevis Road,
Inverlochy,
Fort William.