My Sympathies go out to Scotland.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: I will try to break it down even simpler for you JD [img]smile.gif[/img] . . Fundamentally, the act of pinching something that someone wrote, then putting in a few distortions to focus on the areas you want to target, adding a healthy dash of obscenity then calling it your own blog and taking credit for it is repugnant. The only originality the blogger is showing is the ability to distort and use pottymouth. I don't respect the sort of person that does that and find it difficult to understand the person that defends it. This blogger demonstrates the abilities to steal and deride - nil creativity - nil morality - nil integrity. End result universally should be nil respect. It shouldn't be that some people respect the actions because they make a political agenda statement that they like. You are either for basic morality and integrity or you don't give a toss. Which camp are you in JD?

Well Davros, I'm glad that is your answer. In the words of the Vulcans "Live long and prosper"

[Davros]

Yellow bird you see
Grey dragon hides wisely
Honor is duty

Edited because I chose to go Japanese rather than Chinese
Gosh - I am impressed - I just realised that that Haiku works on so many levels

[ 01-06-2005, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Davros ]

[Zuvio]

Originally posted by Davros: Yellow bird you see Grey dragon hides wisely Honor is duty Edited because I chose to go Japanese rather than Chinese Gosh - I am impressed - I just realised that that Haiku works on so many levels

Show me the places a grey dragon can hide

[Davros]

Zuvio - you seem to be taking my Haiku literally rather than figuratively and metaphyiscally

And this relates to The idiotic Eco-waste going on in scotland how? My crude American sensibilities can't connect pseudo-chinese/japanes poetry to millions of people getting screwed over due to assinine eco-laws.

[Davros]

There are lots of things Ray that your (in your own own words) "crude American sensibilities" seem to fail to connect. The issue of the poop burner will be sorted out over the next year or two in the Scottish and European courts, and unlike you I have a greater faith in the legal system for making and seeing sense in the end. The issue of the crass and undefendable plagarism of said blogger was what the conversation had evolved into.

The connection that you are apparently failing to make is that it was this "no integrity plagarist" that bought the whole subject up in his blog in the first place. Is that making the connection clear for you?

[Dreamer128]

I admit, a bit of Thread-Necromancy, but I just found an interesting new perspective. Might be worth examining for the people that have been debating in this thread.

ScottishPower demands right to pollute air

Legal challenge to EU emissions rules
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

ELECTRICITY company ScottishPower has taken the government and its environment watchdog to court to allow Scotland’s dirtiest industrial plant to continue belching out thousands of tonnes of pollution.
The multinational wants to continue emitting clouds of toxic gases from its Longannet power station near Kincardine on the Firth of Forth. But the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), backed by Scottish ministers and a European directive, is insisting that the pollution must be cut back.

The argument has resulted in a legal battle at the Court of Session in Edinburgh which also involves the water authority, Scottish Water. All sides are anxiously awaiting the outcome, expected this autumn .

The dispute has arisen over the burning of sludge from the Daldowie treatment plant in Glasgow, run by a ScottishPower subsidiary. The £65 million plant takes almost half of Scotland’s sewage from Scottish Water and converts it into dried pellets, which are burnt to generate electricity at Longannet.

Longannet, which mostly burns coal, is by far the biggest polluter in Scotland. In 2002 its smokestack spewed out 67,100 tonnes of sulphur oxides, which make acid rain, and 23,500 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, which cause breathing problems, as well as 13 other pollutants .

ScottishPower and Scottish Water see burning sewage pellets as an efficient and economic way of recycling waste to generate renewable power. But, according to Sepa, the process ought to be subject to the strict new European rules of the European Waste Incineration Directive, which imposes far tougher limits on emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides . Sepa says it first warned ScottishPower that it might apply to Longannet before the directive came into force at the end of 2000.

Last year Sepa was instruc ted by Scottish ministers to implement the directive. In November it issued a legal notice requiring ScottishPower to apply for a new pollution authorisation for Long an net. This prompted the company, backed by Scottish Water, to launch a little-publicised legal petition for a judicial review .

The arguments heard in the Court of Session over the past couple of months centre on how the pellets should be defined. Sepa says they are waste and so should be subject to the directive, but ScottishPower argues that they are a fuel, so should not .

All the evidence has been heard and the judge, Lord Reed, is now considering his verdict, which is not expected before September. Sepa, ScottishPower and Scottish Water all told the Sunday Herald on Friday that the outcome would critically affect their operations.

Sepa pointed out that, to comply with the directive, Longannet might have to install new technology to cut emissions. “Any reduction in sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxides will improve air quality,” said a Sepa spokesman.

“Sepa supports, in principle, activities which re-use or recover waste, subject to appro priate controls,” he added. “These controls are in place to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health or the environment.”

ScottishPower said installing the necessary technology would cost up to £400m. In effect, this would prohibit the burning of sewage pellets and increase emissions of climate-wrecking carbon dioxide from coal, the company argued.

“Sepa is being ultra- precautionary,” said a ScottishPower spokesman. Longannet burns 52,000 tonnes of sewage a year , he added, which would otherwise have to be spread on land or dumped in landfill sites .

The Scottish Executive confirmed that ministers had been cited in the legal case, and a spokesman for Scottish Water said: “Everyone involved is aware of the importance of this issue and the need for a coherent response to whatever decision the judge issues.”

Privately, industry sources were less polite, saying Sepa’s stance was environmentally unhelpful, being “ill-considered, ill-judged, coun ter-productive and nit-picking”.

(11 July 2004) (Source: http://www.sundayherald.com/43276)

[ 01-24-2005, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Davros]

Thanks for that Dreamer128. It will be interesting to follow this to its conclusion and see the wheels in motion (even though they move slowly).

Emission control technology is am option and while it doesn't all come cheap I know that industries like to keep the worst possible number of dollars in front of their shareholders and supporters.

The news article certainly gave a more even perspective than our plagarist bloghead whose "article" (or perhaps that should be bile) started this thread.

[John D Harris]

ROTFLMAO Let me see if I got this Straight. The Choice is between Acid rain/breathing problems or Global warming/Poop spread out. You just got to love it.