Those following this might also like to visit : www.linlithgrow.org.uk
and in particular to read the info leaflets we produced last year.

See :
http://food.linlithgowclimatechallenge.org.uk/?page_id=45

Potatoes, Dorte. Just grow them in a black bag or pile of tyres and stack them up as the plants grow. Or. if you are removing grass, then spuds are an excellent first crop to help take the effort out of working the soil. Let the plants do some of the effort.
Get your spuds from the local suppliers/garden centres and have them chitting ready to go out. Remember there's different spuds for different seasons. Early, 2nd Early, main etc.

Start looking for seeds now, and if you have a greenhouse you could be starting some now.

Test Comment.

Good reply Steve. I too live in an 1920's house (shiver) and it's built with lime mortar and brick ties. On the plus side, the installers EAGA said that they would NOT install cavity insulation in my home, because of these issues and they were aware of certain conditions where it's better to go for internal or external cladding. Clearly, if you read the websites for the brands of insulation installed, there are clear guidelines on how to install and what conditions are ok for product warranty.

I'm not sure there will ever be a right answer for this, and no doubt there will be issues in future, but I'm not sure we have time or CO2 capacity in the atmosphere to have a debate. A reversible solution is best. One that can be un-done if we find a problem, unlike the old spray foam they used to use. You are right that the gov needs to monitor this and to make sure that the problems are resolved.

One for continued debate. Certainly the folks that have had this done in the town are very impressed with the results, but equally does it make them turn down the thermostat or just enjoy a warmer house ?!!.. Now that's the real issue. Perhaps thermostats & boilers need to be locked with 'maximum' values like a rev limiter in a lorry....

Good link - thanks. Keep 'em flowing - we need lots more like this.

Here's some good documents on the EST website.
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/business/Business/Resources/Publicat...

If you search for Insulation on the Building Professionals section, you get lots of documents and several all make it clear that inspection should follow BS 8208 standards and that areas prone to wind-driven rain must be reviewed, as too the condition of the cavity etc. However, despite what they say, I doubt that all installers are properly trained though to these standards which might be a bigger issue.

If in doubt, get a full survey of the property first would be my recommendation.

Last week's climate science conference in Copenhagen concluded with a declaration saying that the most serious warnings on climate change were coming true, and calling for immediate "action". But, argues Mike Hulme in the Green Room, it is not clear what action was being called for, nor precisely who was calling for it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7946476.stm

Cheers, interesting stuff.

The key to household/community renewables is, as mentioned in the link, a decent feed in tariff - that way you can concentrate on overall energy generation (kWh) rather than instantaneous power (kW), selling to the grid when you generate a surplus and buying back when you are in deficit.

Even the useless micro-turbines re-enter the equation when a feed-in tariff is implemented. Our household uses about 7 units (kWh) of electricity per day, which is an average of 300W. A small 1kW turbine working at a capacity factor of 0.3 (a likely value for a reasonably well placed turbine) will generate, over the year, this average 300W - selling electricity to the grid while you sleep or only have a few lightbulbs to power, and buying it back when you boil a kettle or run the washing machine. In an urban setting you might need a 2kW turbine to achieve this average 300W, or accept that you will still have to buy some of your electricity from the grid - but it does begin to look like an economical option again.

Of course, I can't get away from the feeling that the Riccarton and Bathgate hills, or the ridge between Linlithgow and Bo'ness appear to offer pretty good positions for larger, more efficient wind farms; and growing up in Leith and cycling along the East Lothian coast has convinced me that the Forth foreshore is also ideal. If only there were more IMBYs in the world... Any chance we can convince the council to go for a West Lothian Community Wind Farm?...

Hello,

I don't mean to be controversial, and was unable to make the meeting so may have missed an explanation, but was any detail given on the proposal above to press MSPs for

"the needs to move towards 120% as an appropriate target rather than the 80% by 2050 as at present."

According to the latest full figures (1) Scotland's 1990 baseline emissions were 68 Mt CO2e. A 120% reduction from this is -13.6 Mt CO2e, i.e. a net sink of 13.6 million tonnes of CO2e per year.

In 1990 Scotland's gross emissions from Energy, Industrial Processes, Agriculture, and Waste were 71.5 Mt, and by 2006 this had reduced to 63.5 Mt.

These emissions were offset by a total sink in the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector of 2.5 Mt CO2e in 1990, increasing to 4.5 Mt CO2e in 2006.

Net emissions of -13.6 MtCO2e in 2050 would suggest at the very least a total decarbonisation of all parts of the economy, on top of which the overall LULUCF would have to grow to 13.6 Mt, or around three times the size it is just now. In real terms, a complete decarbonisation of the economy seems unlikely, or perhaps impossible, to achieve, which would suggest that the LULUCF sink would need to be even larger. The overall sink from the LULUCF is mostly due to forest growth, but this is offset by significant ongoing emissions from soils that have been turned into cropland over several decades.

The main problem with increasing the LULUCF sink is due to the way that forests develop. After a period of about 100 years they become, effectively, carbon neutral rather than carbon sinks. I.e. the carbon sequestration due to growth of new wood is balanced out by the carbon losses from the decay of old wood. Scotland's LULUCF carbon sink has grown in the last few decades as a reflection of the surge in forestry planting during the 20th Century, but in recent years this has levelled off. Even the most ambitious forestry expansion plans will only results in the overall LULUCF sink maintaining more or less its current value over the coming decades, let alone increasing in size several times over. More moderate projections of activity show the size of the sink declining. It may be possible to reduce the emission source due to cropland, but this is a very long term emission over which we have little control, and I have not seen it suggested that this can be significantly reduced in the forseeable future (2).

In short, LULUCF activities are simply unable to increase the size of Scotland's carbon sinks by the amounts required for a 120% target. In fact, the projected decline in the size of the LULUCF sink means that the sector may become a liability to Scottish emissions by the middle of this century: a declining sink (over which we only have so much control) is effectively the same is a growing source when the net effect is taken into account.

The only other obvious options I can see for ending up with a net carbon-negative Scotland are:

Some form of carbon capture and storage into our empty oilfields - science fiction at present, or

Massive purchase of international offset credits. But by 2050, with global targets for all nations, there will be no market for international offsets as each and every country will need all emission reductions or removals on their soil to be counted in their own inventories.

The final issue is that of the interaction of the Scottish with the UK target. Even if it were technically possible for us to reduce our emissions by 120%, for as long as the UK is going for an 80% reduction all we would be doing is allowing the rest of the UK to make a reduced effort to achieve the overall goal. That would be neither sensible nor equitable.

I am all for setting ambitious targets, and for engaging with politicians to ensure that they do everything in their power to make the most effective legislation possible - but I also think that it is crucially important that what we ask of them is both reasonable and feasible. Since I can see neither any technical feasibility nor global benefit to us setting a target of 120% reductions by 2050 for Scotland, and since the 80% target appears to have been endorsed by the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland coalition of environmental groups, I'm a little unclear where this suggestion has come from, or what it is hoped to achieve.

Cheers,

John

(1) http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/reports/cat07/0809291432_DA_GHGI_rep...
(2) http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/ukcarbon/docs/2008/Defra_Report_2008.pdf

This week the parliament will hear from

Richard Dixon, Director, WWF Scotland;

Duncan McLaren, Chief Executive, Friends of the Earth Scotland;

Dave Watson, Scottish Organiser, UNISON;

and then from—

Chris Hegarty, Advocacy Manager, SCIAF;

Gavin McLellan, Head of Christian Aid Scotland, Christian Aid Scotland;

Judith Robertson, Head of Oxfam in Scotland, Oxfam.

2 pm, Tuesday 3 Feb http://www.holyrood.tv/

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/ticc/index.htm

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee Will also be taking evidence on the Waste provisions in the Bill on Wednesday at 10 am

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/rae/index.htm