YOUR VIEWS: Concerned over drowning risk at Cairngorms beauty spot
Much has been written in recent weeks about Loch Morlich by MPs, MSPs, Highland councillors, heads of departments and others commenting on parking, wild camping, loss of trade and the danger posed by lighting fires yet no-one has mentioned the lack of water safety.
When I was there swimming with my grandchildren I was appalled to see families arriving with paddleboards going out into the loch often with no lifejackets or buoyancy aids even with young children on board.
It is an accident waiting to happen and I can only hope that there are no fatalities.
Last Christmas Day at a lake near to Christchurch in New Zealand, a father was with his 10-year-old daughter in an open canoe.
He was a non-swimmer wearing a life jacket and his daughter had a buoyancy aid.
Their canoe capsized but the young girl was able to keep her father afloat for more than 10 minutes before her strength gave way before she was rescued and her dad slipped from her grasp.
His body was recovered the next day by police divers.
That poor girl is going to have to live with this tragedy every day for the rest of her life because of the lack of basic water safety.
There is a similar situation at Loch Vaa, north of Aviemore, as well as a parking problem by the cemetery which is full to capacity for most of the summer and at weekends.
This is causing parking problems for members of the public wishing to pay their respects to loved ones.
I now visit either early in the morning or later in the evening having had first hand experience of this issue. There does not appear to be an easy answer to this parking problem given the location.
Bruce Cook
Callart Road
Aviemore.
* * * *
Welcome advice on local recycling from Sustainable Strathspey
I was impressed by Aileen Fox’s article last week in which she addresses what can easily be done by us as consumers to reduce the environmental impact of our consumption.
It so often involves non-reusable packing.
Grantown has a good selection of shops which encourage customers to avoid one-use plastic packaging by reuse or environmentally friendly alternatives.
Perhaps they could help further by putting a notice in the window informing customers that this is welcome.
It makes a contrast to the strident antics of the pressure groups who aggressively promote their point of view with little concern for practicality.
Duncan Stewart
Boat of Garten.
* * * *
Treats in store at the Highland folk museum?
As I took one of my nostalgic walks along the old Court Road, I passed the McLean residence at Balnain and was shocked to see the wooden building that had been attached to the gable end had gone.
Why, you may ask, would a building little more than and shed’s disappearance upset me?
Well, as I was growing up in nearby Drynach Croft, in the 1950s and 1960s this shed was our local shop, run by Donald McLean who lived with his family next door.
What goodies lay beyond the door, my brother and I loved shopping there with my mother, as I’m sure did the other children of the area. If I close my eyes, I can still sense the interior.
A large portrait of a not amused Queen Victoria surveying all who came in.
Lyon’s cakes, jam tarts, a variety of biscuits, jars of sweets, cheese cut by a wire. There were the usual staples.
Everything was measured and put into paper bags. Outside in a shed there was a paraffin tank, tins would be filled. No waste, you bought what was needed.
We were certainly a sustainable generation – we couldn’t afford to be anything else. Donald certainly opened all hours. If a customer knocked, he opened.
He also had a black message bike with a large wire basket on the front, which he packed with wares and set off to sell around the district.
The shop was also a meeting place for the local farming community.
Many an evening my father, Martin Ryan and his friend and neighbour, Willie McQueen would take a stroll to Donald’s.
My father, for cigarettes and Willie for Black Twist tobacco. On many a summer evening they would while away the hours outside the shop with their pals.
Donald passed away in the spring of 1964, his son Sandy kept the shop open while also working on the railway. But eventually Donald’s shop fell to progress and slipped into the past.
But oh joy, I have heard a rumour that the wooden building has gone to The Highland Folk Museum. So, if I’m spared, I hope to someday soon, head to Newtonmore and once again step into Donald McLean’s shop.
Margaret M Ross
Dulaig Court
Grantown.
* * * *
Humans are to blame for change in climate
Charles Wardrop is again wrong about CO2 in the atmosphere (Letters, 6th July).
Human activity is entirely responsible for the increase of 144ppmv (parts per million by volume) CO2 from around 277ppmv CO2 in 1750 to 421ppmv now, during which time the natural environment (the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere) have acted as net absorbers of CO2.
That means that human activity is responsible for 34 per cent (144/421x100) of the CO2 presently in the atmosphere.
NASA estimates that the oceans are currently absorbing around seven billion tonnes of human generated CO2 per year, and the terrestrial biosphere around 11 b.t. CO2.
So, what is the source of Mr Wardrop’s confusion? The clue is in the 3.8 per cent figure (or less than 5 per cent) that Mr Wardrop wrongly claims is the human contribution to atmospheric CO2.
The situation is as follows: see: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle ) ,which gives the information in billion tonnes of carbon: annual human emissions from fossil fuels = 9 btC. Annual natural emissions = 210 btC. Annual natural absorptions = 215 btC.
That is where Mr Wardrop’s ‘less than 5 per cent’ figure comes from: annual human emissions are indeed 9/210x100 = 4.29 per cent of annual natural emissions but that 4.29 per cent is an irrelevant figure since it takes no account of natural absorptions.
Those natural absorptions, at 215 b. t. C/year, exceed natural emissions by 5 b. t. C/year so the natural environment is a net absorber of CO2. Thus, there are no net natural emissions of CO2 and all 100 per cent of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is human caused, and those increases now total 34 per cent of atmospheric CO2.
Clark Cross is correct to point out that human population influences CO2 emissions but population growth is declining.
Female emancipation, empowerment and education, better health care, availability of contraception and pension provision, all help reduce family sizes as well as improve well-being.
So does increasing urbanisation: children in rural areas are useful for helping around the farm. Not so in the city. So city people have fewer children. See: https://youtu.be/hNqCRvDbCVI
So, this is the answer to Mr Cross’s question as to what we should do: reduce fossil fuel use as rapidly as possible, and greatly increase protection and expansion of natural sinks of CO2: woodlands, wetlands, peatlands and healthy oceans, mangroves and salt marshes: ie reduce our carbon emissions and increase carbon sequestration.
And to reduce population growth: support female emancipation and social well-being. The urgent need for such transformations to a better, healthier world are hindered by dangerous misinformation on climate issues.
Roy Turnbull
Nethy Bridge.
* * * *
Missing references by CO2 climate change denier
Assertions without supporting evidence, such as in Charles Wardrop’s letter of July 6 ‘Miniscule CO2 in our atmosphere’, should persuade no one.
The ‘seven authors’, on whom he relies, give no authority to his assertions, unless we know what these sources are. There is much misinformation on the internet, as well as valuable information.
Readers need to know what Mr Wardrop refers to if they are to judge whether there is any validity in what he writes. In contrast, Roy Turnbull cites a reference to support his letter of 29 June about CO 2 in the atmosphere, to which Mr Wardrop objects. They are consistent with NASA 2023 ‘Vital Signs – Carbon Dioxide’.
Can Mr Wardrop explain why he is vexed about removing man-made CO2 , perhaps all of it, from the atmosphere, if indeed that is what he writes about?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2022 press release called for immediate and deep reductions in emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) such as CO 2. The UK Government committed to reducing GHG emissions to net zero by 2050.
Emissions are not the same as the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. So who is calling for removing all man-made CO 2 from the atmosphere?
But if Mr Wardrop writes about CO2 emissions, rather than CO2 already in the atmosphere, how does his claim that they are ‘miniscule’ relate to his objection that “decarbonising them as in net zero” would be futile?
Surely miniscule emissions would be easier to eliminate than a larger amount.
Dermot Williamson
Kincraig.
