The SNP's green-washed facade

Those who oppose wind farms and new power lines on an aesthetic basis would be well advised to pay a visit to Scotland’s central coal belt in Lanarkshire, where thousands of acres of centuries-old woodland have recently been torn up to access the black gold lying under the ground. Surely, in this day and age, given what we know about the devastating effects of burning coal on the environment, it is unjustifiable for Alex Salmond’s government to be burning this stuff at a higher rate than ever before.

This move towards coal power is particularly disheartening given Scotland’s otherwise commendable green reputation. The Scottish government has set itself the target of providing an impressive 50 percent of its energy by renewable means by 2020, while as of May last year, Scotland is home to Europe’s largest onshore wind farm.

The target of 50 percent by 2020 is praiseworthy, but the benefits could actually prove to be illusory. Currently 90 percent of Scotland’s power comes from five power stations—two of these run on coal, one on gas and two on nuclear power. The two nuclear power stations are nearing the end of their life-cycle and will not be renewed. When they go offline, the energy deficit will be filled by wind power.

The problem here is that nuclear power is actually a very low-carbon way of producing energy, and a switch from nuclear to wind power will make little difference to Scotland’s overall carbon emissions. The two coal power plants, on the other hand, are being renewed and a third is also being added. What this all means is that the net emissions will increase alongside the increase in renewable energy. The switch from nuclear to wind power is just replacing one low-carbon energy with another. While ‘renewable energy’ will increase, ‘low-carbon energy’ probably will not. It is a crucial distinction. 

Alex Salmond would counter that new ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’ (CCS) and ‘Clean Coal’ technology will allow more coal to be burnt without the corresponding effects on the environment. However, the very idea of CCS is what is known as ‘green-wash’—convenient exaggerations or even downright lies perpetuated by businesses and governments to hide their environmental misdemeanours, thus easing the consciences of their consumers and silencing environmentalist critics.

CCS proposes capturing the carbon dioxide that is emitted from power plants and storing it in the ground or at the bottom of the ocean, but to believe that this practically non-existent technology provides the solution is just wishful thinking. The International Energy Agency which is pushing for the adoption of CCS readily admits that there isn’t a single example in the world of this technology being used on a coal-fired power plant. Sceptical governments are reluctant to invest the necessary money to make the idea a reality, yet are happy to pass it off as a credible solution to rising emissions when their energy policies are criticised. The IEA report also acknowledges that 'no country has yet developed the comprehensive, detailed legal and regulatory framework that is necessary to govern effectively the use of CCS.' All this means that it will be at least ten years before CCS could realistically curb emissions from power plants, by which time global carbon emissions may have already reached a tipping point.

So what should the Scottish government be doing? The new coal mines which are vehemently opposed by local communities should be scrapped, and attention focused on genuinely renewable sources of energy. Until this is done, Scotland’s reputation as a world leader on climate change is founded on nothing more than half-truths and exaggerations.