23rd September 2017

Idiocy of green lobby (Ian Tinkler)

I find it quite extraordinary that such arrant nonsense is being peddled by the green lobby to justify their follies of the past (for example, the Gremista-based energy recovery plant).

Any “standard grade” chemist (SCQF) will know most plastics are nearly completely non-bio degradable. Simply put, that means they form almost indestructible, non-toxic, carbon sinks (traps). That makes them an ideal long term carbon store/sink. Simple burial will leave that plastic trapping CO2 almost for all time.

We have ample sites in Shetland and all over Scotland where such a method of carbon capture could be exploited. To claim as Zero Wast Scotland does that, “data found that plastics from the islands would need to be shipped around the world 15.6 times – to override the emissions saved in recycling” almost beggar belief, that is nonsensical stupidity, plastics should be stored, not recycled nor worse still burnt.

Often I am criticised for my strong language for using such terms as “green lunatics taking over the asylum”, but how could any sane, knowledgeable person not see that burning plastic will release all that trapped CO2, plus many other noxious and toxic pollutants into the environment.

Zero Waste Scotland appears to be yet another Scotish government organisation set up as a PR organisation to justify green idiocy and non-science.

Ian Tinkler
Flawton,
Clousta.

11 comments

  1. John Tulloch

    I know little about plastics but I do know about power stations and to reject a proposal for a new Lerwick power station, fuelled by gas coming ashore at Sullom Voe, and instead to import vastly more expensive “green energy” via a subsea cable costing £103 million more to install than the power station, is well into the realms of “lunacy”.

    Oh, it’ll be wonderful for the virtue-signalling fraternity who want to puff out their chests and brag about Shetland “leading the world” at “saving the planet”, but what about the UK consumers living in fuel poverty – those who will be paying for the £200-£300 million unnecessary subsidy over the 20+year project lifetime?

    After all, Ofgem’s “competition” was intended, ostensibly, to “incentivise efficient use of capital and operations costs”, was it not?

    Reply
  2. James J Paton

    Mr Tinkler clearly knows nothing about plastic and the environmental damage it causes. Where exactly does he get his nformation / ‘knowledge’? He must just make it up. He could try reading a few different books/ journals or indeed academic research, even about the plastic making process.

    I studied Chemistry at degree level, including petrochemicals and radio chemistry. You’ll be telling us nuclear waste is safe next.

    Reply
  3. James J Paton

    Your errors are in your omissions. Anyone who takes their information and knowledge from the Government, any Government, should take a little more care and read more widely. Try reading some of the environment research about plastic. Are you seriously suggesting that plastic does no environment damage whatsoever?

    We should use natural materials for the things plastic is currently used for. Plastic ‘equivalents’ can be built from cellulose and similar naturally occurring organic materials. ( I agree with you about not burning plastic re PCBs release to atmosphere, simply dumping it is not an option either. We need to recycle all of it and ultimately stop making it, particularly plastic bags, bottles and food packaging. The petrochemical industries are the ones who would lose out and it is very clear that they have all Governments in their pay because of our obsession and un-necessary dependence on the finite resource oil.

    It is your ‘blind faith’ in plastic that I find so abhorrent, as if there are no alternatives. It screams of a very closed mind. It is the ‘waste’ in plastic release into our environment that causes the problems for animal and plant life and water supply .

    Reply
  4. ian tinkler

    James j paton, how about your real expertise, your claim “Chemistry at degree level, including petrochemicals and radio chemistry.” You never qualified in any of these subjects, just a load of utter bull, typical Green Party!!!
    https://uk.linkedin.com/in/james-j-paton-b205a014

    Reply
  5. Ali Inkster

    I don’t have the answer as to what should be done with all the plastic but I do think a ban on all single use plastic would go a long way to solving some of the problem of plastics disposed of in the environment. There would be a lot of products ie household cleaners that would no longer be readily available in that handy plastic bottle and that too would be a benefit for the environment and our health. Juice would have to be sold in glass bottles that have a refund value for recycling.sweets in paper wrappers would probably increase the price and reduce consumption, no bad thing in my view and i’m a retailer. But at the end of the day it is up to us to change our lifestyles if we want to save the planet and frankly I see very little of that from those that shout the loudest at the rest of us about that very subject.

    Reply
  6. ian_tinkler

    As yet again, James J Paton, fails to do more than bluster and digress. Not bad for a failed undergraduate chemist!!!. Now for a few facts. These are not fiction but actual fact. Maths may need checking but I think the point is clear.
    Plastic waste Food for thought. A simple fact, more than 9.1 billion tons of plastic has been produced worldwide and the vast majority of it has been thrown in the rubbish. Now if the Green lunatics were to have their way, all this would have been incinerated!! Just think of all that CO2 in the atmosphere, 54 billion tons of CO2 (6 tons CO2 per ton of plastic)! If my calculations are correct, that would take the entire Scotish renewables industry, well over 4000 years (4390.2) to recoup that carbon generation (based on 2015 figures). Now it would take Viking Energy nineteen billion two hundred seventeen million eighty-one thousand eight hundred fifty years!!! (19,217,081,850.6 years) and that is based on a 120 turbine VE!! Yes, the Greenies really are lunatics.
    The least polluting option would be storage via land fill, as it is most of the waste plastic is floating in the sea, an estimated More than five trillion pieces of plastic!! Fortunately, chemical leaching is minimal, and as yet no significant biochemical damage or degradation has shown to have occurred to sea life. However, micro particular and snaring problems are widespread. Burial of non-bio gradable plastic waste must be our safest and most intelligent option.

    Reply
  7. James J Paton

    I concur with John Tulloch (he may be astonished) re using gas to power Shetland’s next power station, given it is incapable of using conservation techniques to reduce energy use. With modern carbon capture techniques it makes a great deal of sense and can be relatively ‘green’. Much has already been flared over the years at Sullom Voe in the name of safety. Such a waste and adding to CO2 emissions.

    What I do take issue with is that he decries anyone who takes a contrary position with him as always ‘virtue signalling’. His and his ilk, use this as a stock in phrase, to ironically virtue signal themselves! This phrase was first coined by James Bartholomew in the Spectator – bastion of Tory Party at ‘word play’ – which tries to excuse their anti-social, monetarist ideology, often in the name of liberty. Liberty of the few to exploit the many – austerity and low wage economy – in the pursuit of amassing capital that is not then used in the furtherance of research and development or indeed trickled down economics to improve society overall. They basically believe that we cannot cooperate to solve the problems we create – the heart of emergent 21st century socialist then environmental thinking.

    Reply
  8. David Spence

    I agree with Ali, we have to do more to curb the use of plastic in terms of consumer goods, but also in the use of carry bags etc etc.

    The super-markets have, I believe, 70% of the food market and are the largest culprits of the use of plastic bags. Some of the super-markets have tried to tackle this issue, but at the same time, due to plastic bags being much cheaper to produce, many of them still use plastic bags.

    There should be more emphasis on using bio-degradable materials for such use as product covering and carry bags……………….this, again, prevented very much due to it costing slightly more than plastic. Sensible and environmentally friendly measures held back due to, potentially, reducing profits. This, I would say, is the real reason why the pollution caused by plastics is not tackled enough.

    What price do we put on the environment and the planet in regards to the use of plastic?

    Reply
    • Ali Inkster

      Bio degradable plastic just breaks down to it’s toxic components faster than non bio degradable plastic, and is not the answer, compostable on the other hand while a lot more expensive could be a viable alternative. But manufacturers won’t make the change until the market demands it, and again that is up to each of us to make the change.

      Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.