LAGGING for the loft became a hot issue when Holyrood's two Green MSPs decided to vote down the Scottish Government's budget last week.
Patrick Harvie and Robin Harper were determined to nail down a commitment from the SNP administration to a £33 million scheme to begin providing free insulation for every household.
They claim families can save £340 a year on their energy bills th
rough a one-off investment by the Government of around £500 per home and this measure alone could reduce Scotland's carbon emissions by six per cent.
There appears to be all-party backing for the idea, even if they might haggle over the funding.
But not all pro-environment initiatives have such clear advantages or command such a consensus.
Eco-friendly ideas like Edinburgh's plan to impose higher parking permit charges on gas guzzlers and Europe's ban on traditional light bulbs are causing controversy.
Questions are being asked about whether recycling is always worth it, when collection and transportation costs are balanced against the environmental benefits. And there have always been doubts over the cost benefit of some alternative energy devices, such as windmills or solar panels, on people's homes.
Last month, Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead announced a £5m grant scheme to boost plastic reprocessing in Scotland. At the moment, most plastic collected here for recycling has to go to England or further afield – sometimes to China – to be reprocessed. Mr Lochhead said getting recycling plants up and running in Scotland would cut emissions from shipping and also create jobs.
But just days later, a UK Government adviser was quoted placing a bigger question mark over the whole recycling enterprise.
Peter Jones, former director of waste firm Biffa and now an adviser to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, warned recycling was not always the best option and argued alternatives had to be considered.
"It might be that the global warming impact of putting material through an incinerator five miles down the road is actually less than recycling it 3000 miles away," he said.
And he said some kerbside collection was "pointless" because materials were mixed together and became contaminated.
An influential article in the New York Times Magazine in 1996, entitled "Recycling is garbage", argued that rinsing out tuna cans and tying up newspapers may make people feel virtuous, but the shortage of landfill and the depletion of natural resources were exaggerated.
But Dan Barlow, head of policy for environment group WWF Scotland, has no doubts about the importance of recycling. "With paper, for example, you need such a huge resource of timber – and there are so many uses for timber, such as construction, that just using it to go to the toilet or to scribble on is a ridiculous use of virgin raw material when you take into account how long it takes to grow and the energy to chop it down and process it."
He backs moves to increase recycling capacity in Scotland and says there is no doubt recycling is better than other options for handling waste.
Green campaigners like to encourage people to adopt an eco-friendly lifestyle by stressing how small changes by individuals can make a big difference – but on one issue, there's going to be no choice.
From the start of next year, conventional incandescent light bulbs are to be banned in favour of low-energy fluorescent ones, which cost more but are supposed to be cheaper in the long run because they last longer and use less electricity.
But critics claim the eco-bulbs not only take time to warm up and give a poor light, the "open" fluorescent light bulbs – where the shape of the coil is clearly visible – can emit more than the guideline rate of damaging ultraviolet radiation; they also contain mercury, which can be dangerous if the bulb breaks; they cannot be used with dimmer switches and the way they flicker is said to cause problems for migraine and epilepsy sufferers.
Friends of the Earth say the switch to eco-bulbs will cut UK energy consumption by two per cent. Whatever the arguments for and against low-energy lights, the step of banning the traditional bulbs does seem Draconian.
However, Dan Barlow argues the voluntary approach will not deliver the change needed – and he would go further than just banning bulbs.
He says: "If we are serious about tackling climate change we need to have legislation which makes inefficient products and goods illegal."
He points out appliances such as fridges and washing machines are already obliged to carry energy efficiency ratings. "We need to make sure appliances which don't meet a certain standard should not be on sale."
Tory leader David Cameron's environmental enthusiasm – and his "vote blue, go green" rallying cry – may have faded recently. But green issues are still prominent in many people's minds.
A Climate Change Bill, setting targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, is currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament. The targets, however, are well in the future – 2030 and 2050 – when none of the current ministers is likely to be around to be held accountable. In the meantime, the green dream will continue to produce its sceptics.
