Established and managed by local volunteers, Greener Leith is dedicated to making Leith greener in every sense. We need your support! The more members we have the greener Leith will get. Join Greener Leith
This Thursday there was a protest outside Holyrood that featured people dressed up as trees, protest songs and numerous Leithers.
All were gathered to try to persuade the Scottish Government to close loopholes in the new proposed subsidy regime that would allow large biomass power plants - similar to the one Forth Energy proposed to build on Leith - to claim considerable public subsidies whilst delivering little environmental benefit.
Even though Forth Energy have dropped their last proposal for a power plant on Leith Docks - locals fear that if the parliament rubber stamps the current proposals the firm may return to Leith with a new proposal for another giant, inefficient power station.
Our response to a Scottish Government consultation on the public subsidy regime outlines these loopholes in detail. You can read it here.
Here's a video clip of what local MSP's, Malcolm Chisholm and Alison Johnstone said to the gathered crowd.
Sally Miller, from the No Leith Biomass campaign also managed to get folk singing a specially written protest song. Here's a short audio clip of the singing:
The rumours have come to an end and we're pretty sure that most people would agree with the First Minister - it's welcome news for Leith.
Spanish firm Gamesa has announced it's intention to invest more than £125million in Leith Docks to create a new manufacturing facility for offshore wind turbines.
The development has the potential to create 800 jobs in the area, with the potential of at least a further 200 local jobs supplying the facilities.
The development will only go ahead if Gamesa and Forth Ports, who own the land, can reach a mutally acceptable agreement. This is pretty likely given the scale of the incentives on offer from the Scottish Government.
Leith Docks was recently designated as a 'Low Carbon Enterprise Area' by the Scottish Government, which means that the firm will be eligble for tax breaks and other support from the government in locating on the docks.
Scottish Enterprise is already working with Forth Ports and the City of Edinburgh Council to put together a new Masterplan for the docks. These three organisations have a five year plan, which we revealed earlier, to improve the infrastructure of the docks with the aim of making it conducive to manufacturing.
Who is going to pay for the infrastructure improvements? Now that a private sector manufacturer has come on board at Leith, we can expect further public subsidy announcements from the Scottish Government towards the end of the year, who have a £70m funding pot allocated for backing the renewable industry through the National Renewable Infrastructure Plan (NRIP) funding pot.
The NRIP estimates that around £35m would be required to bring the port infrastructure up to scratch for manufacturing. According to the NRIP, this could include the construction of a whole new tidal berth on the northern, seaward side of the docks, to accomodate larger ships. There may therefore be the potential of lots of other short term construction jobs too.
In addition to tax breaks, infrastructure subsidies and a 'strategic dialogue' on planning, the city of Edinburgh Council also has authorisation to borrow an additional £84m in order to improve the physical infrastructure of the area.
And then there's the Green Investment Bank, which will be headquartered somewhere in Edinburgh.
Given all this, it is hard to imagine that the development will not go ahead in some form.
Food waste collection are coming, to every household in Edinburgh. By 2020 70% of our waste will be recycled and less than 5% of waste will be sent to landfill. It that even possible? How do you change a city? How do you change a country? It's time to find out with the Cabinet Secretary, Zero Waste Scotland and the City of Edinburgh Council. Leith, Edinburgh and Scotland, this is our Zero Waste Future:
If you have iTunes installed on your computer you can subscribe to our audio as a podcast by clicking here.
The photo at the top is the Cabinet Secretary Mr Lochhead at the launch of the Government's new recycle for Scotland Campaign. The big green box is a sort of reverse vending machine, you give it things to eat and it cheers and tells you what they can now become. In today's podcast we featured Angus Murdock from the City of Edinburgh Council:
He told us that food waste collections are coming soon. I managed to take a photo of the map on his wall showing the areas that already have food waste collections:
For more information on your recycling facilities check out the City of Edinburgh Council Website. Remember Angus said prevention was better than cure, for more information on reduce waste in Edinburgh check out the Changeworks website and the Zero Waste Scotland website. Today's podcast featured Miriam Adcock from Zero Waste Scotland:
And here we are at the end of theseries, we started by following the journey of waste to landfill and ended by looking into the future. In between that we've covered:
We've met some brilliant people along the way including todlers at a toy library, birds of prey at the landfill site, an MSP at the parliament, worms (yuk), community groups, charities, families and individuals who are making a difference. Here's a flickr slide show of the highlights, you can see all the photos from the series here:
Thanks to everyone who's made the podcasts possible and to you the listeners for being part of our community journey towards zero waste.
The new campaign also has a new website that might suggest to the unsuspecting passerby that it's run by a voluntary organisation due to the domain name they've chosen: www.greenerscotland.org
Leithers may be forgiven for thinking that Greener Leith (est. 1996) has suddenly developed ambitions to cover the whole of Scotland. Or that the we've joined forces with other independent community groups, like Greener Kirkaldy and Greener Hawick to play a part in this "overarching national movement."
That ain't the case - as we have enough on our hands in our own neighbourhood. That said we're pretty sure all these groups, including us, would support the new marketing campaigns key message and the more positive way they've gone about delivering it.
Anyway, according to the Drum, this is what Pauline Lamb, senior strategic marketing manager at the Scottish Government, said they aim to do at Greener Scotland:
“The Overarching Greener campaign encourages us all to work together to make a difference to create a cleaner, Greener Scotland.
“By delivering an integrated consumer campaign and working with key stakeholders, partners and agencies - we can encourage the nation to assess their own green credentials and ultimately get on board with making Scotland a greener, cleaner place to live”.
If you're a marketing professional who knows an integrated consumer campaign when you see one, then you may be interested in this earlier post where we had a look at some environmental campaign ads that people have made in the past.
Warning: in the old days government sponsored advertising agencies often made animals die, or inanimate objects talk, in a way designed to make you feel guilty and afraid. That earlier post features some of these disturbing film clips.
What's good about this new campaign: It's positive, focusses on the benefits of collective action, and seeks a longer term and better quality engagement with people than some previous campaigns.
What they could do better: The campaign is still ultimately reliant on other generic sources of government information.
Even though the Scottish Government has funded loads of local groups to take action all over Scotland through the likes of the Climate Challenge Fund there is little mention of these local groups on the website.
Some of the work they have undertaken is amazing, and arguably far more relevent to people in their local area. Yet, there is no linkage from the government. Why not?
Why can't the website direct people from Fife to local information - to the Fife Diet for example? Or people from Edinburgh to our Zero Waste podcasts? Local groups all over Scotland have put together some amazing resources - usually with funding from the government. It's a shame that these are not promoted.
What would make a huge difference: In some policy areas, the Scottish Government is pursing policies that do the opposite of promoting a Greener Scotland. Like, cutting the budget for active travel by 33%, whilst increasing spending on trunk roads. You can read more about this on the Transform Scotland website.
After all the Government's own research from as far back as 2010 shows that successful behaviour change campaigns must be backed up by consistent, credible action from those at the top.
Although we were initially delighted to see some of the policy proposals outlined in the consultation, as we looked into them in more detail some loop holes in the proposals emerged. These currently allow operators of large biomass plants to continue to claim public subsidies even if a very small proportion of the heat they generated was used.
Therefore, we have modified the draft response we published before Christmas to call on the government to close these loop holes. We believe the Scottish Government should make sure that its policies comply with European Union directives to ensure that all biomass plants will be at least 70% efficient.
We have also supported the recommendations of a new report, which was comissioned by the Scottish Government itself, to place a cap on all the size of biomass plants that should be eligible for subsidies at 10Mw. This cap will help to ensure that local wood resources are used - rather than forcing a reliance on extensive, and possibly unsustainable, foreign imports.
We have also called on the Scottish Government to consider the scope for enhanced subsidies for non-profit community owned projects too, as there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they deliver much more public good than purely private schemes.
Today councillors gave full planning permission to proposals to upgrade the cycle path from Leith Links to Portobello, with work now due to start in the new year on a new ramp out of Leith Links and up to the railway line.
This means that the cycle route eastwards from Leith will be much improved. The new path will be tarmac, and not mud, it will be wider, and it will connect properly with Seafield Street and a wider, shared use pavement along Seafield Road that links up with the Portobello promenade. It will also be lit at night for the length of the whole route.
Lastly, it will also connect with the newly improved loop of path that runs from Seafield Street around Lochend and into Easter Road by Leith Academy.
Altogether these improvements mean that the cycle routes around the Eastern half of Leith have been much improved - something Greener Leith has been campaigning for since 2007.
The only things that look likely to cause a delay to the works are bats, badgers and archealogy - according to the planning report.
Whilst we're assured that these improvements have just about managed to slip in before steep proposed Scottish Government cuts to active travel bugets begin to bite, if you want to see more facilities being built like this in Edinburgh it might be worth taking some action to support the SPOKES campaign to hold the SNP to their budget promises on Active Travel.
A multi-million pound hole may have appeared in the Forth Energy buisiness plan for their proposed Leith power plant.
Last week, the Scottish Government announced proposals that could see large, electricity-only biomass fueled power plants, such as the one proposed by Forth Energy on Leith docks, lose their entitlement to claim renewable energy subsidies entirely.
Whilst Forth Energy have never put a figure on the level of subsidy they expect to receive for their proposed Leith plant, we have previously calculated that the firm could have expected to earn at least £800m - £1billion in subsidies over the twenty year lifespan of the power plant. This is over and above the income they would receive for selling the electricity it would generate.
Last year, Greener Leith called on the Scottish Government to remove subsidies for large electricity-only biomass plants on the basis that their economic and environmental impacts were less than clear cut, to put it mildly.
Therefore, we are delighted that the Scottish Government appears to share our view that the best way prevent large companies proposing schemes that do little to support Scottish Government policy for biomass is to withdraw subsidy for them.
Calum Wilson, Chief Executive of the firm behind the Leith biomass plan has said in local public meetings that without the public subsidy the Leith project is far less likely to go ahead. If the Scottish Government does decide to proceed with these proposals it could potentially bring a swift end to the Leith plant plan.
Whils the consultation process runs until January the 13th, it would seem that Energy Minister Fergus Ewing has wasted no time in highlighting the merits of the stance taken by the Scottish Government, when compared to proposals by the government south of the border, where biomass subsidies are to be retained.
"I have grave concerns about the UK Government's ambition for biomass electricity. Large-scale woody biomass used for electricity generation is much less efficient than smaller scale neighbourhood plants.
"Huge electricity-only biomass plants require vast quantities of wood - far more than the UK can provide. Even if every stick of wood grown commercially in the UK went to biomass, it would supply less than a third of the fuel we will require by 2020 if the UK Government's plan for biomass goes ahead.
"Large scale electricity-only biomass will make us reliant on overseas timber markets for our energy. Both oil and gas prices have shown us the importance of a secure, local supply, and if we rely too heavily on imported timber there is a risk of energy security problems in the future.
"Extensive use of large scale biomass for electricity only is likely to push up timber prices and risk hundreds of jobs in traditional wood industries.
"That is why I am urging the UK Government to join the Scottish Government in removing subsidies from large-scale biomass electricity generation."
So, his views are pretty clear then.
And as if that weren't bad news enough for the Leith Biomass plant, it would seem that in the unlikely event that the developers do manage to find a heat customer, the additional subsidy they may have been expecting to receive for distributing the heat has just been cut by nearly two thirds by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Although we hear rumours that Forth Energy staff are hopeful that the City of Edinburgh Council will delay the planning application hearing for a further six months, so far we understand that the planning committee still intend to consider their application in December. After all this subsidy news, it will be interesting to find out whether Forth Energy still have a business plan that would make it worthwhile.
Greener Leith has finally just sent a 14,000 word objection to the proposed power plant on Leith docks. Supported by more than 64 external references, our objection is based on 9 main points:
1. Security of supply
A large thermal electricity generating plant is not justified on this site, and not required to guarantee security of electricity supply. We question whether sufficient supplies of quality sustainable fuel are available globally, without diverting biomass resources from other, lower carbon, uses.
2. Use of heat
Despite the rhetoric of the developer, the proposals contain no guarantee that any of the heat from the plant will be used. The developer has supplied a CHP feasibility study which is inadequate. It fails to address the practical, political and economic barriers that relate to the development of a large district heating network. This is fundamental to a project of this scale and without it very few of the claimed key economic and environmental benefits will be delivered.
3. Carbon savings claims
The Environmental Assessment supplied by the developer makes no assessment of how the plant will operate if none, or very little, of the heat is used. Instead, it is based on an extremely optimistic vision of how the plant might operate, which assumes that considerable quantities of heat will be used. The carbon savings claims are also based on assumptions that serve to grossly over exaggerate the carbon savings the plant will practically deliver.
4. Local environmental impact
The plant is sited in area where public health is already blighted by air pollution and high traffic levels. The environmental statements provided by the developer fail to provide sufficient information on the full geographic extent and range of possible toxins that the plant may emit. Air quality studies are based on inadequate baseline information, do not assess cumulative impacts sufficiently, and do not appraise the impact of the full range of fuels that may be used in the plant. No attempt is made to show how the plant will help Scotland to meet future air quality targets on PM2.5
5. National energy policy
The proposed plant is a large, centralised, thermal electricity generation plant. The proposal does not support the energy generation priorities set out by Scottish Government, or policies that relate to the development of CHP plants, energy efficiency and renewable heat.
6. Planning policies
The proposal is not supported by any national, structure or local planning polices.
7. Visual impact
The proposal will have an very significant visual impact, both locally and throughout the Edinburgh area. It does not comply with tall building policies for the area, nor ‘protected view corridors’ set out to maintain the integrity of the Edinburgh World Heritage Site, and praised by UNESCO. The developer has sought to actively mislead the public and public officials by providing poor quality materials and visualisations to support the application.
8.Socio-economic impact
The proposed power station will be viewed by many as an imposing ‘bad neighbour’ development, and local business organisations are concerned that any jobs created by the development would be offset by jobs lost in local retail, leisure and tourism businesses.
The power station would not be built without massive public subsidy. Yet, it is not clear how this proposal is consistent with current plans for mixed use regeneration of the the docks. Whilst the profits from the proposed plant will go to Forth Energy shareholders, much of the ongoing financial risk of promoting mixed use regeneration on the docks remains with local tax payers through the Edinburgh tram project and the Waterfront Tax Incremental Finance arrangements.
9. Lack of public support
There is clearly no public support for this proposal. At least six local community councils, many of the local residents associations and politicians of at all levels and from a range of parties have expressed opposition the plant.
If you, or an organisation you know, would like to add your objection to this list, please do get in touch. In light of these allegations in a press release by Dundee campaigners, we think it might be important. We can confirm that the press release is correct in that Greener Leith submitted an objection to the Dundee Biomass plant too - and this has not been published on the Energy Consent Unit website to date.
We raised the allegations made by Dundee campaigners with local politicians some weeks ago, yet the response we have received from the Energy Consent Unit, via Mark Lazarowicz MP, is unsatisfactory in two regards.
Firstly, Government officers continue to insist that individual objections are not published due to data protection laws - despite the fact that it is common practice for all objections to planning applications to be made public at local authority level. It is the same data protection law, so it is not clear why this practice is permissable at one level of government, but not another.
Secondly, even if data protection laws do apply, it is interesting to note that the Energy Consent Unit website gives no indication of the total number of objections that have been received.
April 20, 2012 by 
