Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Good heavens! You’re the Environment Minister..
To paraphrase Matthew Parris.. The DUP’s Sammy Wilson kicked off his new role as Environment Minister by making some provocative comments about climate change. Although it’s worth noting that no-one that I’m aware of seriously claims that ”all of that climate change is due to CO2 emmissions.” But the scientific climate models do indicate and, in its 4th report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [official IPCC website here] - which bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature - concluded that, “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.” The new minister also makes an unfortunate slip in the interview when [approx 5mins in] he says that he wants to be judged on his actions as a minister and that he intends to take “decisions which are balanced, which balance development with protection of the economy..” I think you mean balanced with ‘protection of the environment’, Environment Minister.. Then there’s the quadruple jobbing..
Pete Baker @ 05:41 PM
Taking decisions with “All of the facts in mind” - Good - try and find them before spouting your nonsense.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 06:52 PMTrust Slugger to point up Sammy as a CO2 skeptic - you wouldn’t trying to deflect one DUP row with a another potential one…
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 07:04 PMI’m a Sammy sceptic and with someone like him in charge we should be worrying more about methane than CO2.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 07:49 PMThis man will be a disaster for northern irelands environment
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 08:02 PMSammy blethered something about “grapes...Scotland...skating...Thames...”
This would be before the world’s population was at 6.7 billion. Sure, there’s no WAY that that tiny number of people could be having an effect on climate change. NONE whatsoever.
Sammy blethered something about “3% of UK CO2 emissions...”
So, it’s not a case of every little helps? Great! Where’s my 4x4?
Sammy blethered something about “protecting the economy...” and showed that Sammy has not tried to speak to his colleague over at DETI about the massive economic potential of tapping into the green economy, nor has he bothered to look into the massive savings that mixing the economy and environmental concerns have garnered for businesses who for example have participated in programmes like “Green Dragon”.
Sammy held back from blethering about nuclear power. And thank goodness for that.
Whither Seymour now...? It’s his big chance…
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 08:10 PMThe Raven, what’s your problem with nuclear power ?
Isn’t the environmental economy a case of paying people to replace broken windows ?
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 08:18 PMI’ve noticed things getting a bit uncivil around here recently. Can we try to concentrate on the issues rather than venting spleens?
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:14 PMIn response, these are my opinions only, formed on the basis of the for and against arguments. The following is from Friends of the Earth, (I’m not a member), based on a Royal Commission from a few years ago. It *is* a few years old, but as a summary, I always find it useful.
Feel free to argue any of the points. The “bullets” below are expanded on in the briefing paper which can be found at: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/nuclear_power_answer_climate_change.pdf
Doubling nuclear power in the UK would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more
than 8%.Research, in a UK context, suggests nuclear power would produce about 50 per cent more global warming emissions than wind power.
Nuclear power does not hold any financial benefits compared with the development of renewable energy.
Nuclear facilities are uniquely vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Nuclear power produces waste which remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
Nuclear power leads to radioactive discharges into the seas and atmosphere.
All the points are open to debate. By the way, I haven’t included anything on health risks associated with nuclear power. By way of explanation as to why, may I quote from this summary of a New Scientist piece from several years ago:
Subsequent investigations confirmed an excess of leukaemia and other cancer among children living near Sellafield, the complex British Nuclear Fuel runs in northwest England. An excess of childhood leukaemias has also been reported around Dounreay, northern Scotland. Apart from Sellafield it is the only British site where irradiated nuclear fuel is being reprocessed.
In areas near other nuclear sites in England and Wales, there is also a suggestion of an excess rate of leukaemia in young persons. The reported increase is much smaller: 15 per cent rather than tenfold. The raised rates seem to be limited to children and young people under 25. However, neither the age groups with the highest rates, nor the time trends involved, show a pattern.
As to the “environmental economy” point...indeed it is. And pay we should. But in its purest form, it is merely another business opportunity.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:28 PMAdmin...I didn’t find Stalin’s question uncivil.
I *did* however, find Sammy’s interview a blether. If “blether” is a problem, then please substitute “waffle”, “verbal meander”, or “oral vacilliation”.
Cheers and apologies.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:33 PMWee Sammy gave a vintage performance and the reaction is probably as he expected, which should please him, and may have been the objective of the exercise. Once again, “don’t listen to what people say, just watch what they do.”
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:34 PMI’m certainly no DUP or Sammy Wilson fan, but fair play to him for getting the ministry and saying it as he sees it. I quite agree with his stance on many of the environmental issues. HMG and the government in the ROI, along with many other countries, are currently just using “green” issues as an excuse to increase taxation.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:40 PMSammy Wilson as environment minister ..... may as well have Jeremy Clarkson.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:49 PMWorld temperatures have actually fallen in the 21st century; we do NOT suffer from global warming we are suffering (or not as the case may be in Northern Ireland) from CLIMATE CHANGE. The cause of which is open to debate between natural and man made causes!
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:05 PMI think it is a bit of both in terms of raising taxation and environmental concerns to pressure a switch to more sustainable sources of energy because oil will run out one day sooner than later. So it’s about moving to adapt best.
There can be no doubt though that CO2 emissions are dirty and environmentally damaging at a global level. Besides regardless of the extent to which warming is progressing because of it, isn’t it just unnatural for all those wee dirty car engines to be emitting fumes like that.
People get hooked on fossil fuels to stop their legs from having to work, sure jump in the car here, round the block to the shops and then excuse themselves by saying ‘ah it saves time’ and then they sit down to watch the telly. We all do it. It’s like the argument ‘oh I only take my car to the shops and to work’, yea like the rest of the other 100s of millions!!!
Most important of all is that it really is time to diversify into more sustainable sources to avert energy battles.
I think Sammy is being cunning by re-asserting the DUP pro-business line by proving they have removed higher environmental standards from new house builds etc in order to keep the construction trade happy in terms of reducing costs on them. That is what I think he meant to mean by: balanced development / protecting the economy. Nod and wink to businesss, just like the in-house protection agency, a sort of ‘we got your backs covered’ in tough times ahead.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:15 PMAggh. I didn’t realise it was wee Sammy Wilson who Robinson made our new Environment Minister - there I was thinking it was the other Wilson, the Green Party’s Brian Wilson! Now that wee nuclear Sammy looking after norn iron’s environment I’ve heard there are wild parties planned by local developers for this weekend in celebration.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:19 PMRaven,
A couple of points :
- I wouldn’t double the level of nuclear power, I’d increase it to the level that France has if I had a chance, ie 80% of all electricity produced. This would significantly reduce dependency on imported fossil fuel as well as reduce emissions.
- coal and oil plants don’t only produce CO2, they produce tonnes of other chemicals as well, including low-level nuclear waste as well as mercury and arsenic. I don’t believe the health-damaging effects of these have ever been properly studied. The issues of nuclear waste and discharge seem insignificant given that all of the waste produced by a nuclear plant is stored (it should not be discharged into the sea!), whereas all the waste produced by existing plants is pumped into the atmosphere for the rest of us to believe it.
- nuclear stations do present a unique security problem but I don’t think such concerns should prevent us from considering it. The mention of an accident “20 times worse than chernobyl” sounds like bunk, where does he get the number 20 from ? The current Sellafield site has a small fraction of the total output power of the Chernobyl facility.
Where’s the evidence for that claim about leukaemia ? The studies I have seen have found no evidence that cancer rates are any different around nuclear power stations.
Nuclear power works in Canada, it works in France and has an excellent operational record there. I can’t see why we can’t do it here, and reap the benefits.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:32 PMJesus, my last post reads terribly. Too late in the day.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:36 PMThe following is from Friends of the Earth, ...........
Of course they`re not biased.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:36 PMNuclear Power stations are uniquely vulnerable to terrorist attack
Bullshit (sorry Mick). I guess you haven’t been inside an oil fired Station where there was a “small” fire. Have you ever seen a 4 foot thick steel girder bent and twisted like a pretzel. I have. Not a pretty sight.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:56 PMObserver, just to reiterate from my original post:
“In response, these are my opinions only, formed on the basis of the for and against arguments. The following is from Friends of the Earth, (I’m not a member), based on a Royal Commission from a few years ago. It *is* a few years old, but as a summary, I always find it useful.”
All the points are open to debate. The summary that I used is merely useful to me. My mind is made up. I didn’t have to join FOE. Also, I took the time to actually go to Sellafield and have a look for myself. I’ve seen geiger readings locally. It’s a mite scary.
There’s no question that FOE is biased. I am too. But I took the time to research it, before reaching that point. Feel free to do likewise.
Comrade Stalin, to come back to your points:
I wouldn’t dare argue in favour of any fossil fuel at this point. I believe that we should only be developing a combination of renewables at this stage. Anything else only underlines the folly of the situation we’re in now. I have NO idea if the world’s energy needs can satisfied by renewables.
But then, 20 years ago, we didn’t have cars that could feasibly do 100mpg. By way of illustration, my first home PC in 1993 had 16meg of RAM, and 300mB of ROM. IBM today announced a supercomputer that works in petaflop speeds, based on the technology used to develop the PS3. Anything is possible. Imagine if we spent as much on renewables development as we do on nuclear power research.
Any accident or event involving any nuclear reactor isn’t like cleaning up an oil spill. I’d hate to ever find out just how big a bang a plant like Sellafield could have made…
“Where’s the evidence for that claim about leukaemia ? The studies I have seen have found no evidence that cancer rates are any different around nuclear power stations.”
You’re agreeing with what I wrote or rather quoted: “However, neither the age groups with the highest rates, nor the time trends involved, show a pattern.” Hence, why I don’t include it in my argument.
With regard to “excellent operational records”, congrats to the French and the Canadians. I have no such faith in the private sector in the UK.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:00 PM“Bullshit”?? Gosh gosh gosh...everyone is getting so tetchy on this site....
Joe, the points above are all open to debate. I’m just saying that my mind won’t be changed on the nuclear issue. Bullshit or otherwise, go ahead and make your point - there are plenty of others whose minds aren’t made up.
No indeed I haven’t been in that scenario. I have however, had a geiger counter demonstration near Sellafield.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:14 PMSammy may well have been thinking of the economy rather than the environment in a recent debate, Pete.
PS His colleague, Conor, seems to be feeling the heat - but it has little to do with climate change.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:22 PM“Imagine if we spent as much on renewables development as we do on nuclear power research.”
That could be easily achieved, Raven. Just mention the phrase ‘renewable bomb’ ....
Posted by on Jun 11, 2008 @ 07:53 AMMaybe it’s just me, but wouldn’t any plan to build a nuclear power station be immediately vetoed by SF?
Posted by on Jun 11, 2008 @ 08:02 AMKen,
“...any plan to build a nuclear power station”
I have to say that I have not heard of any such plan. But yes, I would think there would be a blocking vote in the Executive.
Again, I think people are missing the point. Pete’s post was not about a policy position (other than in the mind of the Minister the environment is entirely co-terminous with the interests of business); rather it picks up on a misleading statement from a Minister, whose grasp of his previous brief as Education chair was almost faultless.
It seems NI Water are now getting to work on the Water Water problems that have been accruing since former Environment Minister, Dermot Nesbitt did a deal with former Minister for Regional Development Minister Peter Robinson that allowed continued development in more than 50 hotspot areas where the sewage system was already in severe distress.
There is a difference. The interests of the economy and the environment are not always in conflict, but we might do better if the Minister was clearer about the difference between the two!
Posted by on Jun 11, 2008 @ 08:32 AM
