Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Green groups set to challenge Forth crossing

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 June 2009
SENIOR civil servants in the Scottish Government fear the radical Climate Change Bill passed last week could lead to a legal challenge blocking the proposed new Forth Road Bridge.


The bill – which compels ministers to deliver a 42 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020 – could lead them to the courts if they pursue policies which cause them to miss their targets.

Now officials in Edinburgh are privately warning that the
new crossing, which will lead to a major increase in Scotland's carbon emissions – could fall foul of the act. Environmentalists say a group of green organisations may step forward with a legal challenge.

The new law, heralded as the most ambitious climate change legislation in the world when it was backed by MSPs last week, will force ministers to set annual targets for cutting emissions, the first of which must be published by June next year.

It also binds ministers to consult the independent UK Committee on Climate Change and publish its advice on their carbon-producing policies. If ministers are found to have ignored that advice, a legal challenge from green groups could be triggered.

Environmentalists claim that the £2.3bn Forth Road Crossing, which is planned to stand alongside the existing repaired road bridge, runs entirely counter to the act. Studies by Transport Scotland into its environmental impact are currently being carried out.

Civil servants say that if the bridge does go ahead, they would have to make massive cuts elsewhere in order to bring emissions down. One senior source said: "We will have to find other ways of cutting emissions."

The only practical option on the table at present is understood to be radical improvements to household energy efficiency. "But that would mean cladding every house in Scotland," he said. "And they won't like that in the New Town."

Sources say that such are the legal difficulties with the new bridge, officials may insist that ministers make it explicitly clear that they forced them to go ahead with the project, so they cannot be accused of having broken the law.

A Scottish Green Party spokesman warned last night: "If ministers don't see sense, then it might be down to the courts to make them see sense."

The 42 per cent target agreed by MSPs last week puts Scotland in the vanguard of greenhouse gas reduction. It was agreed in a hurriedly brokered deal between the parties after the SNP government was forced to push it up from its preferred 34 per cent by 2020.

As well as setting targets for emissions, the bill will enable council tax discounts to be given for energy-efficiency measures such as better insulation, with MSPs backing a minimum one-off discount of £50 for such measures.

But there is scepticism about whether Scotland can meet the targets. Ministers have already backed other road-building measures, such as the completion of the M74 motorway in Glasgow and the widening of the M9. They have also ruled out building new carbon-neutral nuclear power stations in Scotland, and have instead backed coal-fired power stations.

The pressure may be eased as a get-out clause in the bill allows Scottish ministers to reduce the target later this year if the UK government's advisory panel on climate change says it is unrealistic.

If not, ministers have less than a year to produce their first annual target on cutting emissions. Once the target is set, ministers have to put before the Scottish Parliament a detailed report saying how they are going to achieve it.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "This is scaremongering nonsense. The Scottish Government is committed to building a new Forth road bridge for the people of Scotland that will be toll-free and funded through traditional public procurement.

"Last year we announced a £35bn infrastructure investment programme for the next ten years, with £14bn being invested over the present spending review period."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/06/2009 00:33:27

I Knew it!, Policy making, making only trouble!

Soo lets make life easy, for a change of emission.

Place Big Plastic Roof over the said "crossing", attach vent holes to said Plastic Roof, Purchase many Dyson Vacuum Cleaners, attach them to said Vent Holes, Switch on Mains Supply,.....
.......And 'Hey-Presto'!!, the Fumes are 'sucked-away'!

Problem Solved!, Give Me The Job!

:)

2

Padraig,

28/06/2009 01:13:54
I am really tired of these eco-nutters, a consortium of the loonies and hard left opportunists, trying to impose their dogma on us all, in the name of "ecology" whilst all they really want is to tell us what to do - and ruin what is left of our economy, so that we can all revert to a medieval standard of living from which a communist state could be developed.

Add to these the gullible who actually believe the propaganda and we have an apparent "movement".

If only we could make them revert to wearing their "the end of the world is nigh" sandwich boards, we could all see them for what they are - eccentrics whose opinion is worth nothing.
3

Fifi la Bonbon,

28/06/2009 01:17:15
They're all vegetarian and wouldn't have the strength to carry a sandwich board, unless it was made of very light plastic.
4

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 28/06/2009 02:02:45
I fear the new bridge will witness declining traffic volumes rather than the forecast growth because the cheap oil supplies that currently make everything go are soon to be history. Once the world passes the all time peak of oil production (and some argue we're already passed that point) supply will never again keep up with demand. New oil discoveries, small and increasingly expensive to produce, will not replace the falling output from the giant oilfields that have been producing for nearly 50 years. Oil production is expected to fall globally at between 3 and 6% per year. That's 30% in a decade. It may be that the existing Forth Road Bridge will be more than capable of handling the declining traffic volumes that go hand in hand with falling oil availability!

Converting the existing global vehicle fleet to electric/battery operation will see worldwide shortages of key materials, such as copper and lithium, so it will be very expensive and then there's the electric grid infrastructure and twenty Longannet power stations that will be required to charge up all the vehicles.

Spending the money on electrification and modernisation of the railways is a far better use of resources, but only if we do it before the rest of the world realise it needs to be done too. I suspect that other countries, especially those which have not had oil supplies of their own: Japan, France, Spain etc, are way ahead of us already. We're stuck in the past with schemes like the new Forth Crossing, and the new runway at Heathrow, all schemes that take no cognisance of the real energy supply picture.
5

Electric Hermit,

28/06/2009 02:38:12
2
Padraig

"...all they really want is to tell us what to do - and ruin what is left of our economy, so that we can all revert to a medieval standard of living from which a communist state could be developed."

And you would probably have the hard neck to be offended if anybody called you a conspiracy freak.

"THEY", according to you, are a bunch of nutters, loonies, suckers and oddballs. But despite what would appear to be the considerable handicap of these assorted defects, "THEY" are on the verge of taking over the world.

I'm guessing that, when they fail to avoid being in your company, people tend to avoid eye contact.

6

Incandescent,

28/06/2009 04:07:32
#4 Ghost of william Arrol

I'm somewhat disappointed that you didn't correctly use your beloved, made-up catchphrase, "peak oil" but, instead chose to use the normal phrase "all time peak of oil production".

You forget yourself, Sir.
7

Incandescent,

28/06/2009 04:09:37
#5 Electric Hermit

"I'm guessing that, when they fail to avoid being in your company, people tend to avoid eye contact."

Whereas, in your's, people presumably hold their nose due to the stench from the never-ending stream of **** you spout?
8

drunken proffet,

Tassy 28/06/2009 08:05:23
I believe in an extensive Scottish electric train network, I do not believe in the present, persistent, aggravating and totally out of the box interference in Scotland's future by EcoNuts. However I do accept that I am getting old and common sense went for a phart in the 1970's
9

Unimpressed one,

28/06/2009 09:54:41
#3, They're all vegetarian and wouldn't have the strength to carry a sandwich board, unless it was made of very light plastic."

Plastic is a banned substance according to the green bible, made from that nasty substance called oil.
10

overton,

aberdeen 28/06/2009 10:03:29
To satisfy the 'tree huggers' and eco-freaks, Alex Salmond will propose yet another time and money wasting Public Inquiry.
11

Cabbie,

in the real world 28/06/2009 10:06:50
The existing FRB is not fit for purpose. Every time there are strong winds the bridge shuts for many types of vehicles. When a lorry blows over it causes so much chaos that the polution caused by static traffic would be a problem for meeting the climate change bill. These eco nutters want Scotland to have no infrastructure. The new crossing is vital for Scotland's economy.
12

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 28/06/2009 10:12:50
I don't buy in to this green propaganda. Why would a new bridge increase emissions necessarily? Where would all the extra cars come from?

No, the new bridge is not under threat and it will happen as planned.
13

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 28/06/2009 10:29:47
The green extremists have not thought this through, like many of their policies.

How will it benifit anyone to send vehicles via the Kincardine Bridge adding huge congestion.The train lobbyists must know that bridge is required for HGV deliveries to supermarkets and that trains can only ever be a tiny part of that delivery equation unless every shop in the country gets a rail head at it's back door.
14

Goat Boy,

28/06/2009 10:34:51
The bridge will simply replace an existing structure that has fallen victim to the harsh marine environment and so “it” is unlikely to lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions. It's the poor planning decisions that allow new homes to be built in areas where there is no employment that will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions. The rapid growth in commuter traffic has resulted in congestion and unacceptably high levels of pollution in our cities. And before the ranters start ranting - this information has been collated by central and local government departments- not the tree hugging, sandal wearing, lentil munching loonies described by the people who regularly comment in this paper.
15

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 28/06/2009 10:53:14
This is what happens when you let a bunch of unscientific and ignorant morons create legislation. The law of unintended consquences applies here. One of the flagship projects of the SNP - the new Forth Road Bridge is now under threat from the loonie-left 42% "world-leading" reduction in CO2 emissions brigade, including the SNP. Anyone see a pattern here?? As soon as there's some mention of economic activity the Greens are on their hind legs baying for it to be brought down. What kind of world they want to live in is anyone's guess but it's likely to be one of high unemployment, poverty, cold and misery just like most of the advocates of AGW, pawns of rich International Socialist people like Gordon Brown and Al Gore.

16

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 28/06/2009 10:57:54
I fear the current bridge has fallen victim to the harsh increases in lorry weights since the 1960's. A cheaper solution would be to van lorries and make them use the Kincardine bridge.

regarding many of the points above about 'eco nuts' etc, do you guys ever get away from your computer screens - why not join the rest of us in society and become a member of a real rather than virtual community?
17

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 28/06/2009 10:59:23
If the bridge is scrapped, will the Lab/Tory/Lib alliance then say this is another bwoken pwomis that the SNP have failed to keep??
18

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 28/06/2009 11:01:24
I think the world is at danger from the CO2 emissions from all the people telling us the world is in danger. Don't worry, I held my breath when I typed this.
19

Richard Lionheart,

28/06/2009 11:18:41
The greatest threat facing the planet is “the fight to stop climate change”!

The climate has always changed, the people have always adapted to what the climate has been.

Climate change is inevitable; trying to stop it is futile!

We must adapt.
20

jkr,

Lochwinnoch Greater Glasgow 28/06/2009 11:42:32
This 42% reduction thing is a lot of nonsense. I fully agree with #19. MSPs have little to do if this is all they can talk about.
21

Climate change is real,

28/06/2009 12:48:31
It is revealing that the best one side can come up with is words like, "nutters" and "loonies", while the other side comes up with well reasoned argument. I know which side is more convincing, the ones who put up the well reasoned arguments one can find at http://archive.transformscotland.org.uk/campaigns/FRA/docs/2009-01-15_FRA_briefing.pdf

To poster number 11 - there is no need to build an extra bridge to deal with the wind. Spending a thousandth of the money will provide windshielding where it is needed most on the existing bridge http://news.scotsman.com/forthbridges/Bridge-to-get--windshields.5205813.jp

An article in a rival Sunday newspaper reveals the lies politicians and officials are making about the additional bridge http://www.robedwards.com/2009/06/revealed-deception-over-plan-for-new-forth-road-bridge.html
22

Rob Royston,

Bishopbriggs 28/06/2009 14:50:22
I am not an avid fan of the Green Brigade, but for a country that sends so many Engineers and constructors around the world to help others deal with their problems, we seem to have very extravagant tastes when it comes to spending our own money.

Now, it would appear that the new bridge will not have any greater a capacity than the present one, so the government must have it on good authority that the existing bridge can be repaired, else we will not get any improved traffic flow from the new bridge if the old one fails.

I've previously seen a sensible suggestion for extending the towers so that new cables can be spun above and offset over the existing cables. This will allow the deck to be suspended from these new cables and might even allow for the existing deck to be widened. It has been done on other bridges already.

Has this idea been rejected and why? It would leave a lot of change from the £2.3Bn. Ferries and drive-on rail wagons could take the trucks over, and commuters could use the train services, on the days when the bridge needs to close.
23

Climate change is real,

28/06/2009 15:05:47
"I've previously seen a sensible suggestion for extending the towers so that new cables can be spun above and offset over the existing cables."

Three options have been put forward. New cables above the existing ones, new cables alongside the existing ones and new cables replacing the current ones. These have been planned in outline to see that they are feasible. Some of these can be done without long term closures to the bridge.

The dehumidification process being done on the existing bridge is almost certain to arrest the corrosion, it has worked everywhere else. If, for some reason, that does not work one of the three cable replacement/augmentation projects can be done at a fraction of the cost of an additional bridge and in a similar timescale.

Politicians were bounced into a premature decision by a well resourced lobby which included certain sections of the media, no names no pack drill. They are now being exposed to the consequences of their premature decision.

24

Blue Tooner,

28/06/2009 19:31:35
So our Government have just passed a bill they have NO chance of honouring? For "ambitious" read "totally ridiculous" or "insane!" What on earth is the point of that? A total waste of time and money. I wouldn't trust any of these folk to go to the local Tesco for me. They'd come back with all the wrong stuff and a 400% overspend! What chance has Scotland got with these clowns running the show? I think you have to be stupid to want to be a politician. That's the problem.
25

Cabbie,

in the real world 28/06/2009 23:39:03
Ah, so No.23 climate change is real, is an engineer!
The existing FRB is not fit for purpose it was not built for the weight of modern artics or for the volume of traffic. Everone has opinions but you can't argue with fact.
26

Climate change is real,

29/06/2009 11:45:05
Cabbie is right to say that everybody has opinions but you can't argue with fact.

It is a fact that FETA are working to make the existing bridge last for its design life of 120 years. That is called maintenance and it is needed on any construction. In none of the drawings for the additional bridge has the existing bridge been shown as having been knocked down. It is clear that government are certain it is not going to fall down as some claim, so the additional bridge is not a replacement.

The claim that the existing bridge is not fit for purpose is an opinion, but it is not an opinion based on fact.

The facts, which most politicians and the "another bridge now" lobby ignored, are listed in the paper I referred to in an earlier post. http://archive.transformscotland.org.uk/campaigns/FRA/docs/2009-01-15_FRA_briefing.pdf

As for lorries, the fact is that the main problem is not the weight but the trailer suspension systems currently in use. It is the increased damage caused by current trailers which is wearing out the road surface more rapidly than used to be the case.

As for volume of traffic, it is a fact that the current plan involves no increase of general traffic capacity. If you believe the pronouncements of politicians and officials then the additional bridge proposed at the moment will not do anything about the volume of traffic. That is because the existing bridge will supposedly only be used by buses, pedestrians and cyclists. Other traffic will all use the additional bridge, which only has two lanes in each direction.

Everybody has opinions but you can't argue with fact.

27

El Franko,

29/06/2009 13:56:42
It is not just senior civil servants who should be 'fearing' the bizarre 'Climate Change Bill'. Everyone in Scotland should be afraid of something which could us all so much damage, and cause damage to our environment as well.

Truly, no-one who voted for this Bill is fit for public office.
28

El Franko,

29/06/2009 16:49:34
Science and policy. Just came across this record of the recent meeting between Australian scientists (sceptics)and their 'Climate Minister' complete with scientific advisors. And what a sorry tale it is! Once again, the AGW alarmists are revealed as not having a scientific nor observational leg to stand on. It would be interesting to see a similar meeting with our own dear 'Climate Minister'. What are the chances of that happening?

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Would you support the return of tolls to fund a new Forth Road Bridge?
No, it should be paid for in the same way as other roads.
Yes, it’s fairer for users to bear the brunt of the cost.
Yes, as long as it was only for a fixed amount of time.

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.