Climate Archives - Page 3 of 4

Nuclear Power Accidents And Depleted Uranium

Aberdeen City, Information No Responses »

May 312012

This is one of a series of articles being produced by Aberdeen and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). You can read further articles in both past and future editions of Aberdeen Voice. With thanks to Jonathan Russell.

Even a nuclear power plant that suffers accidental damage has dire long-term consequences, for instance those following Fukushima’s nuclear disaster and although the first reports suggested that harvests contained levels of contamination well under the safety limit for human consumption:

more recent research by the Universities Space Research association in the US State of Maryland has found that the area of eastern Fukushima had levels that exceeded official government limits for arable land and

researchers estimated that cesium-137 (the longest lasting contaminant) found close to the nuclear plant was eight times the safety limit, while neighbouring regions were just under this level.

Much more worryingly, there is a daily struggle to keep 1,500 rods cool which, otherwise, would release huge amounts of radiation into the atmosphere.

If hit by another similar earthquake, the US National Council on radiation protection, along with Japanese experts, have stated that if there were another earthquake, there is a 70% chance that the entire fuel pool structure would collapse, leading to a disaster that would release 134 curies of cesium -137 – roughly 85 times the amount released at Chernobyl.

These experts believe this would destroy the world environment and our civilization, which has led to Japan decommissioning its entire nuclear program and move to Green Energy. In Germany, the public outcry has led them to stop building nuclear power stations and engage in a programme of closing down existing ones and moving even more to Green Technology.

We have yet to find out the long term effects of the depleted Uranium

Of course Nuclear Technology has improved since the building of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant and neither Scotland, nor the United Kingdom, is likely to be affected by an earth quake the size of the one in Japan.

Nuclear power stations have to take this possibility into account in their design (the Health and Safety Executive did note two problems with seismic design at the Heysham and Torness nuclear power plants).

Fukushima has highlighted the extremely scary potential for disaster if we go down the nuclear route as many risks, such as human error and terrorist attacks, would still exist. Also some nuclear power stations, such as Torness, are located near to the sea and the rise in sea levels could lead to flooding.

The present Scottish government is committed to closing down our nuclear power stations while, in contrast, the UK government is planning to build nuclear power stations, although German firms which would have been involved have pulled out.

c1070d3e-7508-401b-b306-05e9f2655df3_500

We have yet to find out the long term effects of the depleted Uranium used by Western forces and NATO in recent conflicts from Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Libya.

What we do know is that death rates and serious malformations of many babies have already greatly increased as a result of the use of depleted uranium in our Western weaponry. But what might happen in the case of unavoidable accidental damage, or terrorist action and what might survivors then regret?

Aberdeen and District CND have meetings each month at 7.30pm on the top floor of the Belmont Cinema Belmont Street Aberdeen

Climate Change Effects From The Use Of Nuclear Weapons

Aberdeen City, Information No Responses »

May 242012

Western and Soviet scientists in the 1980s exchanged information on the effects of the use of Nuclear Weapons on climate.

Their findings were that:

Nuclear explosions would send massive clouds into the astrosphere blocking so much sunlight that a nuclear winter would result.
Global temperatures would plunge 20 to 40 degrees centigrade for several months and remain 2-6 degrees centigrade lower for 1-3 years.
Up to 70% of the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer would be destroyed allowing huge doses of ultra-violet light to reach the earth’s surface.
The UV light would kill much of the marine life that forms the basis of the food chain – it would also blind animals and humans.
The cold and dust would create widespread crop failures and global famine.

More recent research in the United States, based on a sophisticated atmospheric oceanic climate model that had an excellent track record of simulating the cooling effects of past volcanic eruptions, concluded that the 1980s predictions of nuclear weapon winter effects were if anything underestimates.

Furthermore, even limited nuclear war poses a significant threat to the earth’s climate. This would further have an effect on climate change capable of causing economic chaos.

The problems of climate change are already evident. The International Energy Agency projects that unless societies build alternatives to carbon-emitting energy technologies over the next five years, the world is doomed to harsher weather, drought, famine, water scarcity, rising sea levels – leading to the loss of island nations and many coastal areas.

The use of Nuclear Weapons would make this possibility, if we’re foolish enough to continue along the nuclear road, even more of a threat to human and animal life.

Aberdeen and District CND have monthly meetings held at 7.30pm on the second Monday of each month on the top floor of the Belmont Cinema, Belmont Street, Aberdeen.

Wind Turbines In Context

Articles, Environment, Information No Responses »

May 112012

We read regularly in our local and national media of opposition to the development of wind energy and in particular wind turbines. Jonathan Russell adds his contribution to the debate.

There are clearly conflicts between local environmental and social interests and wider environmental and social interests when it comes to future energy use.

It is clear that many consider wind turbines are a blot on the local landscape.
Concerns have also been raised about their efficiency.

I would like to make the following points in relation to:

Our future energy needs
Economic recession and
Climate change.

We are facing energy crises as our gas and oil reserves decline. To import energy when we are in considerable economic debt is not a rational option and will lead to ever increasing costs of energy and a decline in our standards of living. Many of our poorer citizens would go without proper warmth- do people want this?

Coal produces high levels of carbon and would be both highly expensive and of high risk to re-instate. Nuclear Power is more expensive than wind energy and would take longer to come on stream than green technology and requires a greater subsidy. Other Green Technology is also in a developmental stage and we need energy in the short as well as the long term.

Nuclear Power also has the considerable problem of decommissioning nuclear waste, with risks to future generations and with a considerable extra cost. It also has, as we are seeing unfold in Japan, the potential horrific effects of accidents. Radiation effects are greater than we were initially told, and there is a daily struggle to keep 1,500 rods cool which otherwise would release huge amounts of radiation into the atmosphere.

Much more worryingly, the US National Council on radiation protection have stated – along with Japanese experts – that if hit by another similar earthquake, there would be a 70% chance that the entire fuel pool structure would collapse. This would release 134 curies of Caesium 137, roughly 85 times the amount released at Chernobyl. These experts believe this would destroy the world environment and our civilization.

The public outcry in Germany has led them to stop building nuclear power stations, and engage in a program of closing down existing ones and moving even more to Green Technology. Of course Nuclear Technology has improved since the building of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant, and we are not likely to be affected by an earthquake the size of the one in Japan.

However it does highlight the scary potential for disaster if we go down the nuclear route, as many risks would still be around, such as human error and terrorist attacks.

Climate change will have an effect across the globe, and a country like ourselves could be vulnerable as we import most of our food.

The countries that are managing to weather the world economic recession are China, South Korea, and Brazil, and to a lesser extent Finland, where the expansion of green technology – which is replacing information technology as their main growth area – keeps them out of recession. Do we want to become backward economically?

Climate Change is another critical problem facing our planet and could lead amongst other disasters to food shortages and famine. Where do we think we are going to get sufficient food from if we do not start reducing carbon emissions?

The Research program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food security has highlighted that in regions of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa an estimated 266 million people could lose up to 5% of their available growing areas, and a further 170.5 million people in West Africa, India and China will be directly affected. Other areas such as the wheat growing areas of the United States will also be affected.

Locally, due to the unseasonal wet and cold April, many lambs have died. This may or may not be due to climate change, but it begs that question. This along with an increasing world population will have an effect across the globe, and a country like ourselves could be vulnerable as we import most of our food. Then add the increasing costs of energy to this picture. It will mean increased costs and shortages of the basic necessities of food and energy.

Of course we have to concentrate much more on energy conservation and developing a wider range of green technology, but wind power has to be part of the mix.

The alternative – I would suggest – is not worth contemplating.

Old Susannah No.59 – No Country For Old Men

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Creative Writing, Information, Opinion, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Nov 252011

Voice’s Old Susannah takes a look at the week that was in Aberdeen and beyond and concludes that this is no country for old men (nor for old women, people with special abilities, school children and infants or animals either).

Old Susannah has been busy this past week. There was an excellent two-day conference at Fyvie Castle. The speakers seemed to believe our heritage, buildings, archaeology and environment are being affected by something they called ‘climate change’. Hard to believe, but some of these speakers think that our weather and climate are changing.

I’ve no idea why they would come to such a conclusion. There was some person from the Met Office (whatever that is), who seems to think a case can be made for climate change because he has statistics that show it’s happening now.

Stranger still, he thinks this climate change might be somehow linked to people burning lots of ‘fossil fuel’. If anyone hears any news about this unlikely story, please let me know.

The general thrust of the conference was that our ancient buildings are under moisture and temperature stresses they’ve not faced before, and many are at risk of actually crumbling. Something called ‘Skara Brae’ in the Orkneys might get washed out to sea before long.

This would not be a huge loss. As far as I can see, it just a bunch of old stones. The site is crying out for a nice high rise building, holiday homes, shops and parking – if not a monolith and a giant glass worm. As to our wildlife, seasons are getting wetter and warmer, affecting growth and breeding cycles. This is no time to be a bird of prey (or any other type of wild creature either. Just don’t mention deer).

Despite the fact these animals are protected, we still have people who poison, shoot, and loot eggs. Mixed with the changing seasons and related change in availability of food, things look rather bad for these creatures.

This two-day course was run at Fyvie Castle by the Scottish Traditional Building Skills Centre, an organisation which trains people (of all abilities) in the skills needed to maintain our historic built heritage. The Traditional Skills people seem to think preserving Scotland’s historic buildings and monuments is a worthwhile thing to do. (If certain local developers have their way, this centre won’t be needed much longer).

Further information is available on their website:
http://www.traditionalskills.com/

We must have skilled craftspeople in future who can ensure the glass worm/teletubbieland, concrete ramps, etc. will remain beautiful, as I’m sure they will be when they are built.

I couldn’t help going away from the conference thinking what I’d do if I had £50 million burning a hole in my pocket. It might involve a little bit of BrewDog, but it would not involve getting rid of listed trees to build a carpark with decorative worm.

It would have been very hard for staff to figure out that this frail woman had a wound so deep you could see her bone

I was glad of the two-day course and its speakers, if for no other reason than there’s not much else going on in the wider world for me to write about this week. I think I heard something about an American policeman offering some protesters a peppery snack treat, and there may be one or two minor problems in Europe and the Middle East.

I also get the feeling that there might be some financial issues concerning our European economic paradise. Other than that, I’ve not much to say just now.

Close to home, news these past few weeks has been short on happy endings. For one thing, the Monolith was not shortlisted as a Union Terrace Garden design. But looking through recent news items, I conclude this is no country for old men. Or old women, women, people with special abilities, school children and infants. And this is definitely no country for animals.

For example take the case of 87 year-old Jamesina Mackenzie who died from a bedsore which became so exposed you could see the bone. This didn’t happen in the ‘dark’ or middle ages; it’s just happened.

So let’s move on to a definition or two.

Bedsore: (compound noun, English) A type of pressure sore caused by the sufferer lying prone in one position without movement over time. A wholly avoidable type of ailment.

The owner of the Highland ‘care home’ where Ms Mackenzie suffered with the sore that killed her told an inquiry into the death that his staff ‘did the best they could’. According to this manager, the problem was that ‘…there had been some errors in staff’s record keeping’. What would have been the result if they were negligent or slacked off, Old Susannah wonders.

I was glad to hear the staff did the best they could. After all, paperwork can be pretty heavy going. It would have been very hard for staff to figure out that this frail woman, who must have been in excruciating pain, had a wound so deep you could see her bone. You would have to have some kind of medical background to work that out.

Older people are always happy to sell up their own homes

My granny had been head nurse of a hospital in Massachusetts. The old-fashioned, primitive way to prevent bedsores was to encourage movement and if necessary, actually help people to move.

This hospital was very inefficient in that it had more nurses and doctors than managers. Far too much money was spent on patients’ food, and far too much time was spent on actually caring for people. I’ll bet the place didn’t even have a good profit margin.

Care Home: (compound noun, English) a residential institution dedicated to long-term care offering rest and re-cooperation of infirm people, usually elderly.

‘Care home’ – the word even sounds warm, safe and snug. The problem is running these homes costs money which could be put to other use. Older people are always happy to sell up their own homes so they will be able to afford a care home of the type which looked after Ms Mackenzie so well.

Saving money and keeping a home in order to have something to leave to your children is so passe. Sure you might get one or two dozen stories a month about older, frail people being abused in care homes, but who are you going to believe – them and their relatives, or the highly-paid (sorry – highly-trained) caring staff who run these places for profit.

Since most regional authorities and councils decided to ‘outsource’ their care responsibilities, there may have been a few minor hiccups or injuries and deaths. But outsourcing is here to stay.

Still our City council knows best, and despite the collapse of a major private care home operator, Aberdeen is still looking into privatising more of its homes. Which leads me to a definition I might have already done, but seems to need updating.

Outsourcing: (noun; modern English) To take a service or operation away from its parent/owner and have it run by a third party.

We are desperate to save money in Aberdeen (those portraits and jeans for the Lord Provost don’t pay for themselves, you know) and in order to do so, we are giving our money to consultants. The totally impartial consultants come in and look at your business. They decide which services should be outsourced, and then the money saving starts instantly.

clearly they just want to give the best care possible to your grandparents or children.

Coincidentally, they often want to outsource the same services that they are able to provide. Old Susannah has yet to hear of a consultancy saying ‘let’s hire more people so we can run things better and have nicer schools and care homes’.

This just proves that the consultancies are impartial businesses which have to make tough choices. It must be very hard for them indeed.

After the consultants have been paid a modest sum for their expertise, the city fires/lets go/lays off its existing staff who initially performed the services. That’s a saving right there in salary expense. In the case of childcare or nursing homes, this may upset the clients initially (the word ‘client’ as used by the City is an old, infirm or young human being to the rest of us).

The ‘clients’ may lose any relationship they’ve built up with their previous carers, but never mind. If you play your cards right, you might even fire enough people to pay part of the consultant’s bill.

The economics of outsourcing get greater for the city involved. Now that they are no longer providing a non-profit service with taxpayer money, they turn the taxpayer money over to people who exist to make a profit. It might seem as if these private operators would cut a corner or two to make money, but clearly they just want to give the best care possible to your grandparents or children.

In the old days you might have thought the purpose of paying tax was so that the government could provide you the services you needed, but which were not designed to be money-making businesses. If we read the odd case of an older person abused (or given a salt shaker instead of an asthma inhaler as happened recently), then that’s the breaks. The other breaks often involve bones.

Thankfully in these modern, enlightened times, we realise that making money is more important than anything else. Including poor Mrs Mackenzie and the other stories that don’t make the paper.

Stop Press! Aberdeen City Council has approved its budget! Read all about it here in this unbiased City Council report:
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/CouncilNews/ci_cns/pr_budgetrevcap_100211.asp

It’s all central government’s fault for not giving us lots more dosh. This might be in part because we waste so much of the stuff on monolith research, portraits and so on, but hey. You will I’m sure be happy to know that only a few hundred posts will either go unfilled (keeps the existing staff busy covering lots of jobs – they enjoy it) or will go altogether.

Re-roofing an unfit building makes as much sense as anything else going on here

We’re holding on to teaching assistants, which is interesting because we’ll be cutting expensive, boring music and art lessons for children. If you don’t have time to visit the city’s website, then just rest assured of one thing: the 50 metre swimming pool is still very much in the cards. Result!

We may pay for it from the Common Good Fund (remember the good old days when this was c. £35 million? Things have changed). To help balance the books, it looks as if Tullos Swimming Pool will stay shut.

Old Susannah is told that it recently had brand new lights installed, and its roof is brand new. Which is odd, because the city now say the building is unstable. Re-roofing an unfit building makes as much sense as anything else going on here.

Consultants have also produced a brilliant 10 page report (took about a year to do, as you can imagine), showing that Aberdeen has many more swimming pools per population than other parts of Scotland. Of course these consultants counted in all the pools we’ve got: Ardoe, Palm Court, etc. etc. I guess the families of Torry will just have to hop into their BMWs and pay to swim for a day at a hotel pool once Tullos is gone.

Still, we’ll have saved money, and we may eventually produce a swimmer who may win a shiny medal. If Aberdeen wins an Olympic medal in a few decades, we’ll all agree it’s been worth it.

Politics For Beginners…With A Green Edge

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Nov 042011

“Politics for beginners…with a green edge”. As a ‘young person’…this expression I always feel is a little condescending but nevertheless…as a ‘young person’ the world of politics can seem both inaccessible and unapproachable. So I was pleasantly surprised this weekend when I made the effort to go along to the Scottish Green Party conference which was held at the University of Aberdeen. Bex Holmes reports.

So, what was this conference all about, you maybe asking?

Well every year like most political parties’, the Scottish Greens hold an annual conference in which members can get together and have a good old natter about the world’s pressing issues including those happening locally.

There is of course a bit more to it than that, such as getting your head around voting for new policy motions and various other in-house processes. Most of which baffled me, but I’m ‘young’ so I can get away with being a bit clueless now and again!

Aside from all these formalities however Patrick Harvie MSP gave a keynote speech which really made me stop and think. Everything he said reminded me of why I had not only sought to become more active in politics in the first place but why I choose to join to the Scottish Greens over all others.

He highlighted the Scottish Government’s contradictory policies on energy and climate change. Yes, our climate change targets are awesome and a step in the right direction. But (and that’s a big but) they are completely undermined by our continued support of the fossil fuel industry. Simple as!

More eloquently put of course by Mr Harvie:

“Alex Salmond now has a very clear and simple choice – he must either fail on Scotland’s much-vaunted climate change targets, or he must drop his unconditional support for the fossil fuel industries…First, the new coal-fired power station at Hunterston must be blocked. Then he must rule out shale gas extraction, which his Energy Minister has refused to do.

“Then, because CCS can never be applied to most uses of oil anyway, he must drop his support for dangerous deepwater oil drilling in Scottish waters…The challenge with fossil fuels is not to burn all the reserves we already know about, let alone to go looking for more. The priority has to be energy efficiency and renewables.”

Basically, it’s a bit loony of the SNP to think that they can run a high-carbon and low-carbon economy at the same time. They have to choose.

You maybe thinking at this point…ah what does she know? She’s young and evidently a bit naive. Well, I maybe naive in the ins and outs of politics but I know enough as an Environmental Scientist that Scotland has a responsibility to curb our emissions. Both for the sake of those in developing countries who unfortunately will bare the brunt of climate change but also our children, and our children’s children.

We need to take action now which must be integrated into the whole of society including our financial system. This brings me onto another thing that reiterated my choice in the Scottish Greens. I was delighted that an emergency motion was passed supporting the Occupy movement.

Speaking at the conference and representing Edinburgh’s Green Councillors Cllr Steve Burgess said;

“Greens support Occupy Edinburgh in their call for a new economic system that will reduce inequality and protect the planet’s shared resources that we all depend on. It’s early days for this movement but this up welling of dissatisfaction is a welcome indication that even people in democratic countries are feeling disenfranchised.”

Yes indeed, there are load of us ‘young people’ out there who are disenfranchised. I dare say maybe ‘young people’ have always been disenfranchised but with few job prospects and soaring higher education fees, is it any wonder that we tend to be a grumpy bunch?! So I was also glad there was a fringe event with the ‘young greens’ whose main aim is to support members between the ages of 13-30 and discuss their problems and concerns.

Having a network of ‘young people’ across the country will help enable us to raise the profile of issues which disproportionately effect young people, including social housing, jobs and education. As well as the dire state of our health as a nation…there’s that big ‘A’ word that just won’t go away…alcohol.

Other activities included workshops on canvassing, which basically means being very smiley, saying hello and actually talking to you out there…the voters.

To sum up my experience of the Scottish Greens conference as a ‘young person’ and political novice – it was fun!

I learnt a lot and more importantly it has motivated me to become even more involved with politics. To these ends I will endeavour to stop hiding behind my veil of cluelessness and get savvy about things because frankly, there’s a lot of stuff that affects me and my future which I think most politicians completely miss.

Not because they don’t care but because they are privileged having never come across these issues in their own lives.

So this is my small call to arms. ‘Young people’ we do actually need you! You can actually make a difference! Register to vote. Do a little reading on political parties…as a member of the Scottish Greens of course I will be biased here but seriously look at what the parties are actually saying in their manifestos. How will it affect you?

Most importantly, VOTE. And if one day you’re wondering what more you can do, why not join a political party and become actively involved? I took that leap and for me it was well worth the effort.

For further info, contact: Scottish Greens Aberdeen And Aberdeenshire Working Group

Just Do It! – Go See It!

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, News, Opinion No Responses »

Oct 102011

With thanks to Gordon Maloney.

On the 18th of October, university campuses across the country will be showing ‘Just Do It’, a truly inspiring film chronicling a year with direct-action environmental activists.

As one of the activists in the film says “”It doesn’t matter if it’s dodgy, if it’s big or small, you’ve just gotta do it” and while this is perhaps less elegant (or, arguably, more so) than the Suffragettes’ “deeds not words”, this message is just as pressing now as ever before.

After years of disillusionment over, at best stalled, at worst useless, “official processes” on climate change – as well as almost everything else from poverty to tax havens and employment – activists have learned that if they don’t take matters into their own hands, big business will.

What this film is about, more than anything else, is showing that direct action can change the world and that anyone can do it.

It is exciting, it’s fun and it’s a way to affect change now – and there’s nothing to be scared of. Would the fate of Woolworth’s have been different if, instead of leaving quietly, sacked workers had occupied their shops up and down the country? Precedent suggests that it may well have been.

What stopped them? Fear? Apathy? Maybe, but far more likely is the concerted campaign run by every organ of capitalism that tells us from birth that we can change nothing. This alienation is the greatest danger our society faces, because it disempowers us more than poverty and discrimination ever could.

Here at the University of Aberdeen, where one of the screenings is taking place, we have seen clearly the dangers of relying on politicians and the good-will of business.

Donald Trump’s golf development, on the unique and beautiful Balmedie beach, is a classic example of big money riding rough-shod over local democracy, advice from every reputable environmental organisation that’s looked at it and even the local people.

Less well known is Ian Woods’ plan to destroy the beautiful, historic Victorian sunken gardens in the centre of Aberdeen City. Again, here, the concerns of local people have been ignored – even though a consultation organised by Woods’ backers showed massive opposition to the plan – and we see, once more, the privatisation of public space in the name of profit for the few.

It is becoming clearer every day that asking politely simply doesn’t work, and this message is beginning to reverberate in the popular conscious. Mubarak was brought down by massive popular mobilisations and industrial actions, and those occupying Wall Street know that the banks won’t be reigned in by a petition.

The right to strike wasn’t won at the ballot box, it was won by striking – and people now understand that meaningful action on climate change isn’t going to come from nowhere, and it certainly isn’t going to come from business. It’s going to come from us.

Just Do It will be showing at the University of Aberdeen, MacRobert Building at 6pm in room MR051 on Tuesday the 18th. This is a free showing and students and non-students are more than welcome.

Just Do It – 12 August At Belmont Cinema

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information No Responses »

Aug 092011

JUST DO IT – Documentary
United Kingdom 2011,
90 mins

Director: Emily James
Starring: James Leadbitter and Lauren Simpson

12 August ,6:30pm
Belmont Cinema

The world of environmental direct action has been a secretive one, until now.

With unprecedented access, Emily James spent over a year embedded in activist groups such as Climate Camp and Plane Stupid and documented their clandestine activities.

Torpedoing the tired clichés of the environmental movement, JUST DO IT introduces you to a powerful cast of mischievous and inspiring characters who put their bodies in the way.

They super-glue themselves to bank trading floors, blockade factories and attack coal power stations en-masse, all despite the very real threat of arrest. Their adventures will entertain, illuminate and inspire.

JUST DO IT is a totally independent project made possible by the generosity of over 100 volunteers and 447 crowd funders. www.justdoitfilm.com.

Suzanne Kelly of Aberdeen Voice will introduce the film and host a Question & Answer session after the film,

The Discussion panel will be made up of:

Emily James, Director, ‘Just Do It’
Robin Parker, NUS Scotland President
David Milne, Campaign against the Trump golf resort
Suzanne Kelly (Chair), Aberdeen Voice

See Link for more info: /Just_Do_It_A_Tale_Of_Modern_Day_Outlaws/

Tullos Time: What’s Happening On The Hill? – Part 2

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Jul 222011

Last week in the first of this two part investigation, Suzanne Kelly described how The City Council and its officials were dealing with the Tullos Hill roe deer cull and tree-planting issues. Part 1 also covered the decades of arson on ‘The Gramps’, the excellent quality of Tullos Hill as it is, local community councils’ opposition to the cull, and the considerable public anger at the City’s refusal to even consider modifying its plans.

The hill itself is a wildlife haven; the very important gorse providing homes to bees and birds. There are fields of wildflowers (the spectacular Dame’s Violets for instance), and it is a recreation area.

This is why our City Council – as a LibDem election pledge – want to turn it into some gargantuan 40,000-tree profit-making (ie lumber-producing) forest.

We now look at other important aspects of this issue, challenge the government to comment, and propose some actions.

The Gorse is always Greener

‘Kissing is out of fashion when the gorse is not in bloom’ goes an old saying – based on the fact gorse virtually always has blossoms. This is an extremely useful plant for bees. If you’ve not been made aware, bee populations around the world are in serious trouble.

As long as we still want our plants to be pollinated so we keep eating, we are well advised to do all we can to encourage bees. My research leads me to conclude that gorse is far better for bees and several other species than trees are (particularly trees which will be cut down for profit when the Council chooses).

Don’t take my word for the importance of gorse. Do take Dr. Ian Rotherham’s word:-

“Gorse is an incredibly valuable habitat for wildlife – supporting a diversity of invertebrates and many birds and mammals. It provides dense cover plus abundant nesting sites, invertebrate food associated with the gorse, and of course the blaze of flowers during much of the year. Butterflies, bees, hoverflies, spiders, badgers, whinchats, stonechats, yellowhammers, chaffinches, linnets, greenfinches, meadow pipits and skylarks for example, all thrive in gorse-rich areas.

“As the biomass of gorse builds up it loses vigour and beings to die back. If there is a fire then the gorse is reduced to ground level and will quickly regenerate for the next 30-40 years or so. Clearly fire risk can be a problem but not for the gorse or the associated wildlife (except at the immediate time of a conflagration).

“Cyclical cutting of gorse, grazing, and cutting of fire-breaks are positive ways to reduce risk and damage but to maintain what is a rich but often unappreciated wildlife habitat. The establishment of a friends group to watch over the area would also help reduce risk. The gorse in bloom is also a wonderful landscape feature. A plantation wood does not provide a biodiversity resource or a landscape feature to match this. Trees are often planted at the expense of the wildlife habitats and landscape features because of the misconception that they are inherently better for wildlife – which they are not – and because money is available as grants to do this.”

( Dr Rotherham is a Professor of Environmental Geography, Reader in Tourism & Environmental Change, International Research Coordinator, associated with universities around the world. He is editor of several important academic publications including International Journal of Urban Forestry, Journal of Practical Ecology & Conservation, and International Urban Ecology Review )

I would be interested to hear from any City Council officer, ranger or pro -Tullos Hill tree plantation consultant wishing to comment on Dr Rotherham’s statement.

In the meantime, Ian Talboys, Countryside Ranger for Aberdeen wrote to me on 6 June:-

“The amount of gorse on the site will be substantially reduced to make way for the tree planting
which again reduces the risk of wilful fires”.

Why should a countryside ranger particularly be keen to change an ecosystem such as Tullos to a profit-making, lumber-producing forest? Where is the evidence that replacing gorse with saplings and trees will reduce wilful fire risk?

City Council ‘austerity’ and ‘budget’ cuts

I spoke to a person connected to the countryside services for the Council. They advised me that like virtually every branch of our local government, they are now expected to find income streams and do all they can to make money.

It is not enough that our environment is under threat from over-development, pollution and loss of biodiversity – our environmental conservation activities are supposed to make money for the City. Would our rangers’ time be better served in patrolling the fire-prone areas, educating people and engaging in active conservation, or are we asking them to look for grants such as the tree-planting ones and to make money at all costs?

If I get an answer to this question, I will share it with you. Again, I invite comment from the City.

I still await a reply as to how this timber business is going to be set up, and for a copy of the business plan. Should any of this information ever be forthcoming from our elected officials, I will share it with you. Again, should any City proponents of the scheme like to come forward and (finally) explain how the timber business will work, I invite them to do so.

It has just been announced that despite negotiations with Unions being incomplete, the City has signed an agreement with external consultants to make £120 million worth of budget savings over a five-year period (cost of these consultants has been estimated at between £500k to £600k). Perhaps they will have their own opinion as to the viability of a timber business venture on an arson hotspot which has already resulted in the City returning £43,800 to the Forestry Commission…

Failed Tree Planting, Failed Open Government, Failed Freedom of Information Requests

In a ten-point complaint I clearly asked for clarification of a £44,000 debt for a failed tree plantation which I had heard of. The City’s Chief Executive Valerie Watts wrote in early June to deny any money was owed.

Proof that this payment was made was given to me almost immediately after Watts’ denial – but as of 21 July,Wattshas not explained the failure to disclose the repayment.

The proof is a letter the Forestry Commission sent to the City earlier this year which was copied to Ian Talboys. The question is whether Watts knew of the letter when she wrote to me or not. Until she explains her answer, the whole planting programme should be put on hold. It is not just returning money for the past failure (we had to pay interest) but the implications for this new planting that need to be considered, which could be significant for the cash-strapped council’s taxpayers.

Watts was made aware of this repayment by me, and possibly earlier by others. What is beyond the pale is that Freedom of information Officers continued for some weeks afterward to advise that no debt was owed. All of the requests I have seen referenced the £44k figure; mine specifically asked for clarification of the matter.

If the City tries to use the excuse that since the debt was paid in March and the questions arrived in June, then that would be the most disingenuous logic coming from Town Hall in memory. I am sure it is beyond the Council’s lowest standard to try and make pretence of using such a childish defence. When we will get the truth is crucial – they must not be allowed to stall this matter until cull season opens. If anyone trying to prevent the cull could ask their elected officials to have these issues addressed and investigated fully as an urgent matter, it will help. I have asked the FOI office to explain whether or not it discovered this letter in its search to answer my question. I have asked it to advise whether or not it made a deliberate decision to not disclose this letter. I await the outcome of the investigation.

Yet another Freedom of Information anomaly exists regarding Grampian Fire.

Fire power

The previous article covered the problems of arson. Confusion emerges as to the number of fires. There was a FOI request response from Grampian Fire which shows a nominal number of deliberate fires. At the time of writing I await permission to share or reproduce these figures, as they are apparently ‘copyright’. I have officially applied to print them, but cannot do so until Grampian Fire’s officials approve my written request.

However I came across an internet document which shows a rather different, substantially higher number of fires than the FOI request revealed, entitled ‘Grampian Fire and Rescue Service Category 2 – Advancing Community and Citizen Well-being’ . This document states there were over 70 fires for 2006, and claims the figures were going down; it had partial 2008 figures and said only 11 fires started that year. It is worth mentioning that there have been at least half a dozen fires in the Gramps since May of this year. In any event, the paper’s numbers are not the same as the recently supplied figures, which are lower.

I will try to discover an explanation for the discrepancy, and will cover whatever explanation Grampian Fire sends in another article. Both email addresses for the FOI officer and the above paper’s writer are at the address ‘@grampianfrs.org.uk’, which leads me to conclude the same organisation might be responsible for distributing contradictory figures.

I add this to the ever growing list of things I am trying to discover, and yet all the while a cull remains the City’s goal, and the clock is ticking.

SNH – Natural Heritage as long as it’s not inconvenient

Scottish Natural History have been taking great pains to gain media coverage recently (BBC and local press), saying in effect that deer are great, but to stop them being killed in road accidents and over-populating, they have to be ‘managed.’ They launched a consultation, which many animal groups felt had a strong bias towards hunting and culling red deer and roe deer equally. First, what kind of animal are we talking about exactly?

What are roe deer?

Recognition: Small deer, reddish brown in summer, grey in winter. Males have short antlers, erect with no more than three points.

Height: Average height at shoulder 60-75cm (that is less than 3 foot tall). Males slightly larger than females.

Weight: Adults 10-25kg

Lifespan: The maximum age recorded for wild roe is 16 years, but most die before 7 years.

Diet: Their diet is varied and includes buds and leaves of deciduous trees and shrubs, bramble, rose, ivy, herbs, conifers, ferns, heather and grasses.

By permission, the Mammal Society,
http://www.mammal.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&id=228

So in short these tiny creatures, of which we seemingly have 30 on Tullos Hill alone jeopardise a 40,00 tree plantation. (The Council has made absolutely no mention of how they will tackle the weed problem cited by the Forestry Commission as a partial reason for the previous expensive failure – again, I have asked for this information with no reply).

Glasgow has made a strong statement against these types of culls which can be found at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/291204/0089678.pdf and the relevant section starts on page 5.”

Here are some relevant extracts:-

“….collaborative deer management is not necessary for Roe deer in urban environments as there is no scientific justification for this.

2.4 There is no mention of the positive role of wild deer on natural habitats. Large herbivores help to create and retain glades and rides within woodlands, which provide habitat for a range of other species.

2.5 This section of the Bill has the potential to perpetuate and reinforce the perception of deer as pest species. Whilst this will promote the interests of a minority who have a vested interest in deer management principally through culling, it goes against the reason for the inclusion of native wild deer on the Scottish Biodiversity List, Le. the appreciation of these animals by the general public who wish to see them left unharmed.

2.6 Glasgow City Council believes that this section in its present form promotes an unbalanced view of the rationale behind deer management, whilst acknowledging that there is scientific justification for the management of red deer in parts of the Highlands.

Deer in Scotland – General Comments.

2.7 GCC object to the blanket statement that ‘Deer therefore need to be managed … ‘ for the following reasons:

• The terms manage/managed/management are not defined but appear to relate to culling deer, which is not the usual definition of management. This needs to be clarified.

• If the above is the case, then deer do not always require to be culled because in some areas an increase in population size could be beneficial.

•Red Deer and Roe Deer are quite different animals not only in size but also in habits etc. Why are they covered by one piece of legislation and why do they both have to be managed?”

The various animal charities I’ve communicated with all remain against this cull and have their own experts who explain the flaws in the entire premise.

Can we have some urban trees please?

A personal observation. The section of Aberdeen I live in, Torry, has fewer trees on its main streets than any other part of the world I’ve lived in, city or suburb. The streets are however covered with cars and trucks 24/7, and the exhaust fumes have air quality implications.

A few trees would do a good deal to clean the air. It would be costly and difficult to plant and protect them. But it would not be impossible. We know from the Council’s websites that parts of Aberdeen (Wellington Road in particular) have serious air pollution issues. We also know trees help reduce vehicular pollution. In the course of my research I learned that the indigenous fir trees for the Grampian area have been greatly depleted over time – yet there is no plan to replace these native species.

Conclusion: Stop this destructive, unwanted plan now and cancel any deer cull. Plant fewer trees. Plant in other locations

Unanswered questions

Regarding the business plan for the proposed forest. How much will it make? How disruptive would this plantation be to the area residents and businesses?
Why does the City insist only a ‘minority’ of people are against this cull when elected bodies have objected on behalf of their communities? If the Community Councils are lining up against this scheme – which started life as a Liberal Democrat election pledge – is it not just time to dump it?
Why didn’t the City disclose the £43,800 failure when asked to clarify whether a £44,000 debt existed?
As the failure was due to deer and weeds – what are we doing about the weeds? What kinds of pesticides will be used? What are the risks and implications?
If the scheme is ‘cost neutral’ – who exactly pays the (low-seeming) estimate of some £2,500 per year for ten years to shoot the deer?
Have council employees been discouraged from expressing opinions against the cull? (My sources tell me this is the case).
Why take the scheme up at all if it must be done at the lowest cost – which is shooting the deer? Who is hold a gun to the City’s head and forcing it to change Tullos Hill into something it is not? What is the reluctance to just stop this scheme now? Has the City made any effort at all to get sponsors to pay for the non-lethal options? (Note: BAA and Wood Group have contributed for the phase 1 scheme – neither seem keen to be associated with this deer-culling phase 2. Concerned people may wish to contact these and other companies to state opposition to phase 2).
What are the real arson risks once a forest is established on this windy hill (if indeed it is not too windy for trees to be established in great number)? Is it possible the situation could be as severe a problem as the forest fires that plague the US and Europe? What are the correct figures for the arson attacks?

A final summary

Last week a media contact asked me to supply the statement below, which sums up my conclusions and reflects the opinions of the vast majority of the people I have spoken with:-

The public have in no way given up on stopping the deer cull on Tullos Hill. Tullos is an important and beautiful ecosystem as it is, and the deer population has been stable for many years.

Putting up signs to warn motorists that deer are in the area is sensible; putting 40,000 trees on this arson hotspot is not sensible. Four Community Councils have told the Council they do not want the trees if it means a cull – these elected councils represent thousands of people.

The City had to repay £43,800 for a planting on Tullos that failed due to deer browsing AND weeds. The City initially omitted this when I asked for clarification- and I patiently await sensible answers to this and other questions. The tree planting was a Liberal Democrat election promise – it is amusing that it is this unpopular promise they are so stubborn about keeping.

Finally, Peter Leonard has written to say that the Community Councils don’t understand the issues and they only know what they got from the media. I find his remarks unbelievably patronising and insulting, particularly when it was down to the Council to communicate the details of its scheme in the first place.

The Council kept the deer cull out of the phase 2 public consultation and is now claiming people don’t have the facts. This is wholly unacceptable, and I am pleased that my sources tell me there is a great deal of unrest, with an official calling the situation ‘a hot potato’.

Unfortunately the lack of timely, sensible answers looks to many people as if the City is stalling and hopes to get away with a cull. There will be no cull without repercussions at the ballot box in May.

I am creating a presentation to give to any community council that wants it, particularly aimed at those councils which will have the City’s experts present their side. Direct action is being considered by some animal rights/concern groups.

If you have any feelings one way or the other, then I urge you to contact your elected representatives (you may also wish to contact Scottish Representatives Roseanna Cunningham and Stewart Stevenson who are backing the proposal).

Good luck to the roe deer and the wishes of the people of Aberdeen in the face of our government.

Grasping The Transport Nettle

Aberdeen City, Articles, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Jun 242011

“Which of our conflicting transport demands are most important?” asks Jonathan Hamilton Russell in this edit of his longer article, written to encourage debate on the future of personal and freight travel in NE Scotland.

Scotland has extremely ambitious climate change targets, yet we prioritise airport expansion and roadbuilding.

The NE economy needs transport infrastructure to allow movement of goods; people have to get to work with few holdups.

Meeting climate change targets means embracing sustainable transport usage by reducing car, road freight and air travel yet Aberdeen Airport has the fastest-growing passenger numbers in Scotland; public transport is the only option for many, but the majority are wedded to car use. Among Scottish cities Aberdeen car count is highest; Aberdeenshire has the highest rural area car usage; increasingly, Aberdeenshire residents drive to work in Aberdeen, exaggerating traffic bottlenecks.

Public spending cuts mean local and national governments face stark financial choices affecting resources for maintaining and enhancing transport infrastructures.

The days of cheap petrol have passed. Prices will continue to rise.

Bus fares are higher here than throughout Scotland. Southbound buses are often of poor quality although local buses are of a high standard, and Aberdeen citizens, on average, are nearer bus stops than other Scottish cities’ residents.

Bus use in Aberdeenshire can be problematic, but could be increased by driving to stops and transferring to buses – less stressful than car travel. Council cuts to services for the disabled and elderly have made travelling significantly more challenging for such socially-excluded groups.

What can we do?

There’s general agreement that people should be encouraged to travel more sustainably. Cycling activity is increasing, although levels are lower than elsewhere in Scotland, and it needs to be encouraged as a healthy, environmentally-friendly activity.

Cycle pools, common in many European cities, could be created. Cycle routes to school, given priority, would provide more fun and health benefits for children than car travel. Cycle safety measures would need to be put in place, particularly at roundabouts, to make them less dangerous.

Park and ride schemes, particularly at Kingswells, are less successful than envisaged but remain a commuting option. Car-sharing, whilst becoming more common, is far from the norm. NESTRANS, responsible for planning and transport implementation, has suggested piloting car-share lanes.

Laurencekirk railway station has re-opened, but more stops are needed, possibly at Kittybrewster and Altens. The Haudagain roundabout obviously needs improving, with priority for cyclists, buses and car-sharing.

A new Bridge of Dee is needed – contribution to its cost from that area’s large retailers might have been written into the conditions when planning consent was agreed. Any new development should prioritise cycles, buses and car-sharing.

Aberdeen is a fairly small city and walking should always be marketed as a healthy, cheap and quick transport option.

Traffic lights in pedestrian high-use areas should give priority to pedestrians. 20 mph restrictions have improved safety, although limits are regularly broken by a minority of drivers.

Offering flexible working hours is effective in reducing peak-time traffic levels. Salary benefits for those cycling or car-sharing could be introduced, with car pools for staff who have to drive during work time. Working at home, for at least part of the week, is an option as is business conferencing rather than travelling to meetings. Both would reduce business costs.

it is well-documented that increased road space leads to increased traffic

Will the increased price of petrol reduce car use enough, or do we need to introduce road pricing, viewed as the single measure most likely to effect change to how we travel? The increased motoring costs would make drivers consider alternatives.

Aberdeen would almost certainly benefit, reducing the numbers moving to Aberdeenshire as extra travel costs outweigh housing cost savings. It is a hot potato, however, and would be unpopular due to the high levels of car use locally. Few politicians would have the courage to suggest its introduction, despite being effective in reducing car dependency.

We also need to identify new means of financing transport developments and to maintain the current deteriorating infrastructure. Road pricing could raise those funds.

Some planning decisions have encouraged car use. Union Square adjoins both bus and rail terminals but it has also provided increased parking opportunities.

It has had a detrimental commercial effect on Union Street, George Street and Bon Accord Centre shops, all more accessible by bus.

The proposed Union Terrace development would increase city centre car parking availability, flying in the face of the need to reduce car travel and move towards more sustainable transport methods.

All measures have advocates and opponents. The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) for example, highlights conflicting views and interests. Newton Dee Village fought an effective campaign to stop the road encroaching on that community; Road Sense has successfully raised legal objections, forcing public inquiries, even if of limited scope.

The AWPR has both advantages and disadvantages. It would help take freight off Aberdeen’s roads although significant volumes still have to come in and out of Aberdeen.

It would reduce travel times although there are other bottlenecks further south. It would reduce congestion at the Haudagain roundabout and Bridge of Dee, but it is well-documented that increased road space leads to increased traffic. Roads in general will become more congested.

The AWPR would help businesses. It will allow more people to live outside Aberdeen as it will be quicker, at least initially, to travel into Aberdeen but will lead to an increasingly-ageing city population.

Such demographic change will leave Aberdeen City Council with less money and greater demands on resources. An excellent deal has been negotiated in terms of local authorities’ contributions, with the Scottish Government meeting 82% of costs. These, however, have already escalated and impending substantial expenditure cuts will leave less money in the overall pot.

The low level of rail freight uptake is a national scandal. Road freight transport’s perceived flexibility sees it preferred. Historically, there were conflicts with rail unions, who, however, are now keen for freight to move to rail. This will need increased public and private investment, less likely in a period of reduced public spending, although in terms of providing work and kick-starting the economy this option should not be ruled out. This also applies to the AWPR.

There would need to be contracts developed between the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, rail companies, unions and government at all levels.

The replacement of the freight terminal by Union Square was a setback for future local rail freight capacity.

New freight facilities have been introduced at Craiginches and at Rathes Farm but this has not increased capacity. There are sea/rail links at Waterloo Quay and freight yards at Inverurie and Huntly. NESTRANS strategy states that development of new open-access freight terminals could be explored and if transferring freight to rail becomes reality, new depots would be needed.

Aberdeen harbour is an excellent freight facility and passenger transport gateway to Orkney and Shetland, with potential to expand both services. Currently five million tonnes of freight are exported through the harbour, but the loss of rail freight infrastructure in the station interchange area was a lost opportunity to link sea freight with rail.

We have to decide on our priorities.

Are we really concerned about climate change?

Can we move towards more community-based forms of travel from those currently privatised?

Do we want a more healthy society that walks and cycles more?

Can our business needs dovetail with our environmental needs?

Is it possible to think more holistically when making planning decisions?

Aberdeen Voice would welcome contributions to this debate.

Image credits:

RAILWAY JUNCTION © Davidmartyn | Dreamstime.com
CAR INTERIOR © Li Fang | Dreamstime.com
BICYCLE PARKING LOT © Chris Mccooey | Dreamstime.com
UTG DENBURN © Mike Shepherd

Nuclear Power And The Future Of Delivering Energy

Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Jun 182011

Nuclear Power has always been a contentious issue. There have always been advocates for and against. International concerns about Climate Change, an impending energy crisis and the nuclear accident in Japan have highlighted the issues concerned. Jonathan Hamilton Russell writes.

For CND there has always been the concern of the link between the technology of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons. The Sustainable Development Commission chaired, at the time by Jonathon Porrit in 2006, produced a report for the then Labour Government stating unanimously that, following a detailed analysis of sustainable development factors, that Nuclear was not the preferred option.

This followed a Government White Paper in 2003 which had concluded that Nuclear Power was not an Economic Option. Several days after the Sustainable Development Commission reported, Tony Blair announced that Nuclear Power was to be an essential component of our future Energy Provision.

Recently high profile environmentalists James Lovelock and George Monbiot have been converts to Nuclear Power given their concerns about Climate Change and the resulting requirements to cut back on Carbon omissions.

The SNP have long championed alternative energy and have been against Nuclear Power, as have the Scottish and English Green Parties, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Jonathon Porritt, who was sacked as the chair of the Sustainable Development commission still sees alternative energy and energy conservation as the way forward.

We have had until recently a bonanza of cheap energy in Scotland and the UK and the public has become used to cheap energy and the ability to regularly drive, fly and live and work in centrally heated buildings. This situation will soon end. The reality of peak oil and the need to import Russian Gas have yet to be admitted to the public by most politicians, and the expectations of the general public is that the status quo remains. Whatever decisions are made, there will be inevitable opposition to both nuclear power and alternative energy. Climate Change has already gone down the political agenda.

We have failed to invest and research sufficiently, concentrating our efforts on oil, gas and also nuclear

The costs of producing both Nuclear Power and Alternative Energy will be much higher than present costs and will require both increased public subsidy and will mean rising costs for the consumer. The costs are likely to reduce as we become more expert at production of nuclear or its alternatives.

The costs of South Korea’s Nuclear Reactors went down by 28% by the time they produced their 7th and 8th Reactors.

Safety measures have improved – the Reactors in Japan are 40 years old – and the safety technology no longer requires power from outside. However, the risk of human error intentional or otherwise and unknown hazards still exist. The costs of insurance are high and do not include de-commissioning. The potential hazards of storage of spent Uranium still remain to be seen. Only three councils have agreed to storage underground – all three being in Cumbria.

There is however still uncertainty of risk in relation to this method of storage. Storage and waste costs still have to be borne by government. Increased use of Uranium will lead to shortages as estimates are that about 100 Years worth still remain, and when it runs out what will happen?

There are concerns and restrictions in many countries regarding the mining of Uranium, and Kazakhstan – a Muslim country on Iran’s border – has the main stocks. The costs of Uranium are likely to increase if there is more demand. There has historically been considerable contamination of local communities when mining has taken place, and even with greater safety measures some risks will remain.

The alternative is increased energy conservation and the use of renewables. As identified by the Sustainable Development Commission the UK – and in particular Scotland – has the potential with tidal energy, wind power, carbon capture, waste and power, and solar developments to cover our energy needs.

However there are challenges. We have failed to invest and research sufficiently, concentrating our efforts on oil, gas and also nuclear. There would have to be significant resources put into research and design, and if we were also putting our efforts into nuclear then opportunities with renewable would be lost.

The recession will mean there is less money to invest. A much better use than cutting the cost of petrol in the long term would have been to use the money from taxing oil companies to pay for the development of renewable energy resources.

There would be problems both with nuclear and renewable as to where to place energy resources.

There has been significant public opposition both to nuclear and wind developments. The Crown Estate commission has powers in relation to developing resources at sea which would have to be overcome.

The North-East of Scotland has a huge potential for the development of renewable energy and the area would benefit from more focus on its development. The main problem I would suggest in relation to our future energy provision, is public expectations and politicians needs in terms of re-election. People have become used to private transport and cheap central heating and whichever way we go will be unpopular.

My own conclusion is, that spending on Nuclear Energy developments will divert money that could be spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy. There is a challenge in relation to needs in terms of peak usage – such as before Christmas – but these could be overcome by us linking into a European network of energy.

In historical terms Nuclear Power is just another short term fix whilst the opportunity of renewable energy will always be with us. In some countries which are landlocked, Nuclear may be the only possible route but given what has happened in Japan potential risks of location would have to be taken into account.

Older Entries Newer Entries