Biggar bids to be Scotland's first carbon-neutral community

[Tom B]

"A CAMPAIGN to create the first "carbon neutral" town in Scotland is to be launched tomorrow in an attempt to kick-start a green revolution.

Under the plan, the town of Biggar, which has a population of about 2,000, would grow its own food, create its own electricity and dump no waste.

A group of activists, backed by the South Lanarkshire town's two schools, church and several businesses, will hold a meeting in the Municipal Hall tomorrow in the hope of persuading the rest of the residents to join the campaign. Hundreds are expected to attend.

Estate agent John Riley, a driving force behind the project, said he believed it was only a matter of time before people realised it would save them money on their electricity bills and increase the value of their houses.

He has also been encouraging people to rent Al Gore's documentary film An Inconvenient Truth ahead of the launch in the hope of inspiring them to join the cause for altruistic reasons.

Mr Riley, who has been in touch with the Cheshire village of Ashton Hayes - also trying to be carbon neutral - admitted: "By no means is everybody signed up to it and if the community decide they don't want this, it's dead in the water. But I hope they say we need to do this. ...."

more - http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=607152007

[Sweltered]

Wouldn't the estate agent guy be more responsible in telling people to research the subject properly instead of encouraging them to watch a propaganda film which wouldn't know objectivity if it slapped it on the face. I have no problems with people recycling etc etc. I don't believe humans are causing global warming, but who can argue against cutting back on emmissions, of course we should. Al Gore's movie is so full of holes he could fly his private jet through it. Oh and have you any idea how much elctricity his house uses...20 times the average for a US home. He is a hypocrite with an agenda, and I don't understand why so many people are so quick to deify him.

The people of Biggar are conducting a laudable experiment, but this "Good Life " existence is only achievable in a very small place, we can't all cycle to work.

[Hadrians hiring!]

Wouldn't the estate agent guy be more responsible in telling people to research the subject properly instead of encouraging them to watch a propaganda film which wouldn't know objectivity if it slapped it on the face. I have no problems with people recycling etc etc. I don't believe humans are causing global warming, but who can argue against cutting back on emmissions, of course we should. Al Gore's movie is so full of holes he could fly his private jet through it. Oh and have you any idea how much elctricity his house uses...20 times the average for a US home. He is a hypocrite with an agenda, and I don't understand why so many people are so quick to deify him.

The people of Biggar are conducting a laudable experiment, but this "Good Life " existence is only achievable in a very small place, we can't all cycle to work.

Sweltered, not having a dig (for a change) but looking to see if this is right. Heard it a couple of weeks ago but dont know if I remember it correctly.

Texas is roughly same pop as UK I believe yet electric consumption in summer is far higher than UK in winter

Presumably all the air conditioning?????

[Sweltered]

Not sure why you are mentioning UK electricity consumption, it was the US average which was mentioned. Look it up at http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp.

He pays to get some of their consumption from green sources, this smacks of hypocrisy. He is not cutting back on consumption, he pays to satisfy his conscience.

[mary,queen of everything]

HEAR HEAR! Sweltered. I agree with you 200%. Do you suppose this will be gores presidential bid platform?????
Didnt we do something like this in the 70s. No one did anything then and no one will do anything now.

[Sweltered]

He had his chance, and probably really won (not that it matters he shouldn't have had to rely on a few thousand votes in Florida), but his time has gone.

[Bobbie En Tejas]

He had his chance, and probably really won (not that it matters he shouldn't have had to rely on a few thousand votes in Florida), but his time has gone.

Bush shouldn't have had to rely on a few thousand stolen votes. Good grief, look at the damage that has been done since then. There comes a point even if you voted for him that you have to hit your forehead and say "omg, what have I done."

If you read the URL Sweltered posted, it also says that the Gores pay $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources. It also says "other factors (such as climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage COMPARABLE to that of other homes in the area."

The man has been into the environment on a serious level since he was 18 or 19, long before he ever dreamed he would someday be president of the United States.

So much for propaganda...

[Sweltered]

I believe I did say that he paid extra for electricity from green sources. And what happened, happened I wish democrats would quit whining about it. I have no party affiliation, I can't vote, and wouldn't vote for any of them if I could. THe democrats will get their chance soon enough, so we'll see how THEY will screw it up, which they will. They are both as bad as each other. As for the Gores, they can afford to sate their concience by paying extra for their electricity. His problem is that he cannot entertain the notion that he could be wrong, even in the face of evidence. He is a politician, first and foremost, and has an agenda. It makes no difference if he would have made a better job than Bush. It is all speculation, coz he didn't get into the Whitehouse, and probably never will (thankfully keeping his harpie of a wife out too).

Just because he has had the environment on his mind since his teens, doesn't make the film any less of a propoganda tool. You'll always be right if you only look at one side of the story.

Oh and theres a LOT of people who are quite happy with how Bush has run things. A fact that seems to be overlooked. See, both sides.

And before you look down from your high horse again Bobbie, remember I don't like either side, and distrust politicians in general. Just because I don't worship at the feet of Gore doesn't mean I support Bush

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Being fair is not worshipping feet.

[Sweltered]

Having looked into this, objectively and not just accepted one thoery and dismissed all others, I've been fair. Gore has tunnel vision, and so do many others. The way he was treated at the oscars was scary. I thnk worship was the correct word to use. There are a lot of sheep out there who take everything he says as being the gospel, without finding out that there are other views.

This isn't about politics, its about whether his documentary (not really his, but he seems to like taking the credit, a bit like saying mike myers is the best animator ever, because he did the voice for shrek and added a few lines) is accurate, fair and balanced. From watching it, one would never know there are alternative theories...Gore and his human being-causing-global-warming suppporters could be wrong you know. But its a wonderful platform for him, it doesn't matter if he wrong or not, there's no way of proving it.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

Sweltered - what about the recent findings of the IPCC.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The most recent report states:

From Wikipedia .....

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

More deluded scientists? Or should we disregard the opinion of these experts and go with the less than 5% chance that you're correct? This is not a political issue, climate change knows no borders. The sooner we all wake up to the fact this is happening and do something about it the better.

Getting back on thread Biggar is to be applauded for it's attempt.

[Beachcomber]

Regardless of how you feel about the causes or existence of global warming and climate change, anything that promotes more efficient use of energy and cuts down on waste can only be a good thing, surely?

I'd love to go through our house and replace all the filament bulbs with compact fluorescents but they're so much more expensive. Doesn't help that we have three different fitting types and bulb shapes.

[Sweltered]

Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.

“Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues’,” Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is “good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.”

“We should always listen to the minority,” said Pielke, who spoke from his office in Boulder. “But it’s prudent to take actions that both minimize human effect on the climate and also make ourselves much more resilient.”


So here we have the director at a respected University casting doubt on the very panel being held up as providing the definitive answer. How long did it take me to find this rebuttal, about 20 seconds. Here's another,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_ipcc_should_leave_science.html

Don't think I haven't looked into this, I took a class on it and formed my opinion based on evidence. I'm old enought to remember in the 1970's being told, by the very same scientists that we were heading for an ice age. Were they wrong then, are they wrong now? People woke up then too, now they are expected to believe the opposite now.

I'm all for cutting emmission, who wouldn't be, but I don't believe they are causing global warming. But are Carbon Credits the way to go http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/carbon_credits_indulgence_or_c.html

I've already commended Biggar their stance is admirable. My point was that holding up Al Gore as the prophet for the future of the Planet is irrisponsible at best. There's more than one opinion out there.

Here's some light reading. The site is operated by a right wing tosser, but theres a lot of info on it.
http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html

And finally. Most Universities don't allow references from Wikipedia, it's not classed as a reliable source....

[Bobbie En Tejas]

No one is holding up Al Gore as a prophet. He is a spokesperson for a message that needs to be heard. If you don't like him, thats fine, but why put him and the efforts of many others down? It is no secret that we are polluting this world, and that the world would be a better place if we found other sources of energy and cared about a clean world. Why fault the man? I don't get it. Is it that you dispute the scientific facts about where we are now compared to where we were a million, a thousand and even 15 years ago? Or is it that you just can't stand Gore, so that you will have contempt for anything he says?

If you think about it, the people who have the most contempt for Gore and the facts presented in the movie are the same ones who believed the WMD bull doodoo and still stand behind their man.

Even if you don't like his conclusions about the cause of global warming, you have to admit there are some shocking things shown in the film that have happening in the world and quite a bit in our own lifetime. If nothing else, it made people aware of how our earth has and is changing. I agree with Beachcomber, "anything that promotes more efficient use of energy and cuts down on waste can only be a good thing, surely?"

Do universities allow bloggers and the Schnitt Show as sources?

Why not the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html ? Since the head of it is a Bush pick and still seems to say things more in line with the Gore stance.

[Sweltered]

Nope they certainly do not, but what's good for the goose..............

I don't like Gore because he is a hypocrite. I'm just pointing out his lack of objectivity. '

How many times have I said that I agree with reducing emissions?

More later