 Those were Blake Lies. It would be super. We have our second semi-finalist in place, to talk to the motion. This house believes that renewable energy projects cause more harm to the environment than good. A thawr iawn i isu Charleston, Morfyn Cormaigol, Jemima Morris a Cameron Cochran. Daugwch i chi ddim yn dda i'r spr sigh o gael bwysigol i ddau'r dibuith yn ddigweld ar posibl. Mh gosteant, hefyd, menysau i ddweud, ddau ddau ddweud i ddau a ddau a ddau ddau mawr. Iamguno i gael i dd wedi eu digwydd yr unigol ar gyfer mae'n gweithio ar y cyffredinais boblau. I have started off his debate by giving some of my own points. My colleague Rebecca will then continue some of his points and then Ryan will finish our points off. My points today will be about general environmental issues about a couple of renewable energies. First, we as the proposition would like to make it clear that we are not against renewable energy. We are against renewable energy that do harm to the environment. I am solely in favour of finding a clean energy source that does not harm the environment. Mae cyfnodd, rym ni i wneud wedi bod yn cyd-lyw i ddim yn y bwyd. The impact of wind turbines on wildlife, most notably on birds and bats, has been widely documented in studies. A recent national wind coordinating committee review of peer-reviewed research from evidence of bird and bat depths from collisions with wind turbines and due to the changes in air pressure caused by the spinning turbines, as well as habit disruption. Coss yn olaf i'n bach o'r fywdd messy anhygoel ac yn gyfynnwys. Mae'r fywdd messy anhygoel yn gweithio y bach o'r fywdd messy anhygoel ac yn gyfynnwys. The sound and visual impact are two main public health and community concerns associated to operating wind turbines. Most of the sound generated by wind turbine is airruin anacles caused by the movement of turbine blades to there. Noise pollution coming from large wind turbines is usually the most talked about environmental drawback of wind turbines. The modern turbines are usually large with huge blades, and in areas with high wind speeds they're able to breach big noise levels. Wind turbines have seriously improved their efficiency in the last couple of years, but this, sadly, is not the case with the levels of knots that are still significant. What this means is that the noise pollution still remains the biggest environmental drawback connected with wind turbines. There is also a mechanical sound generated by the turbine itself. Overall, sound levels depend on sound vibration issues. It is important for wind turbine developers to take those community concerns seriously by following them. Fossil fuel power plants cause much more noise pollution than renewables and wind turbines. We clearly stated that the start barrier is not for fossil fuels, only for renewables that do not harm the environment. When people think about wind turbines, they think of a small field with two or three turbines. Well, what you actually get is masses of industrial-scale turbines taking up acres of land, destroying habitats and causing noise pollution. I find my point that we will be about hydropower. The size of the reservoir that is created by a hydroelectric project can vary widely, depending largely on the size of the hydroelectric generators and the topography of the land. At one extreme, the large Balbina hydroelectric plant, which was built on a flattery of Brazil, was built on 2,000 acres per megawatt. In contrast, a small 10 megawatt run-of-the-hill plant in a hilly location can use as little as 2.5 acres, equal to an acre per megawatt. Flooding land for a hydroelectric reservoir has extreme environmental impact. It destroys forests, wildlife habitat, agricultural land and scenic lands. In many instances, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China, entire communities have also had to be relocated to make reservoirs in those communities of about a million people. Hydro-like facilities can still have a major impact on aquatic ecosystems. Fish and other organisms can be killed and injured by the turbine blades. Apart from direct contact, there can also be wildlife impacts both within the dam's reservoirs and downstream from the facility. Reservoir water is usually more stagnant than normal river water. As a result, the reservoir will have higher than normal amounts of sediments and nutrients, which can cultivate an excess of algae and other aquatic weeds. Those weeds can crowd out other rival animals on plant life, and they must be controlled through manual harvesting or by introducing fish to eat these plants. Those two renewables are reason enough that renewables do more harm than good and are the reason that we beg you to oppose. I invite the first opposition speaker to outline her case from Charleston. Madam Chair, judges, fel debaters, ladies and gentlemen, this House venantly opposes the motion that renewable projects cause more harm to the environment than good. I am going to convince you that renewable energy projects are an amazing amount of goods and cause no harm to the world as a whole. My colleague Ms Cymruichael will go on to speak about the massive benefits renewable projects bring to the Scottish environment. It is essential for the life of our planet that we generate renewable energy. Climate change is real and it is here. Everyone from politicians to comedians are concerned about the problem. Lennie Henry recently said that the global warming scenario is pretty grim. I am not sure I like the idea of polar bears under a palm tree. This is not such a flippant remark when you think about what is happening to our climate. Frequent weather extremes, flooding and subsidence, rising sea levels, increased temperatures. The challenge to save our planet is immediate. We must act and renewable energy is the solution. The amount of energy that the world uses every day has trebled over the last century to keep up with our greedy demand for energy, to heat our homes and to power our industries. Power stations are burning more and more fossil fuels. Elfwell is using up finite resources. I would like to point out that the motion is not about fossil fuels, it is about renewables doing more harm than good. If you waited, I was going to say that these use up finite resources, which is a harmful process that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Renewable energy generally produces no carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases, which are responsible for climate change. Renewables be finest with safe, green, constant energy. That will last us far into the future. The Scottish Government knows how important it is to stop even more damage to our planet, and the targets that it has for renewable energy use will help to stop the destruction. Renewable energy is key to our low-carbon energy future. Renewable energy is energy that comes from natural sources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, wave and geothermal heat. Renewable energy is the best way to save our planet and, believe you me, it needs saving. Take the Amazon rainforest, for example. It's disappearing before our very eyes. Species are dying out. According to the latest figures, 137 species every day. That's an astounding 50,000 species disappearing every year, and that's only one small part of our planet. This is simply not acceptable. If we don't do something soon, the human species will die out. Carbon-free renewable energy is what we need. Renewables do more good than harm, it's irrefutable. Renewable energy projects are providing the human race with plenty of opportunities to reverse the trend of disappearing species, disappearing habitats and disappearing cures for diseases. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the planet. The Kyoto protocol is committing countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Since the protocol was signed in 2005, the UK has far exceeded the targets. How have we managed to achieve this? Simple. We have developed renewable projects that provide power without the nasty polluting toxic side effects of fossil fuels. How can the proposition claim that renewable energy projects cause more harm than good when the evidence against this is so clear? Dr Zeus was ahead of the game when he said, unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not. Well, we in the opposition do care, and we know that renewable projects are providing the role with a resolution to the damage that generations before us have caused. Fylda Bates, we are the future, and we must embrace renewable projects as a way to ensure that our future is clean, healthy and secure. Ladies and gentlemen, judges, that is why I beg you to oppose the motion. I am now going to call on the second speaker to make the case for the proposition and hermitage. Ladies, gentlemen, hon. judges and madame chair. I am Rebecca Frails and I am here today to propose the motion that this House believes that renewable energy projects cause more harm to the environment than good. I would like to start off by rebutting a few points made by Opposition Speaker 1. Nuclear is, in fact, the reason why we meet the target, as it's okay to. As the UK is 50 per cent powered by nuclear. I would like to start off today with my first point, which is about hydroelectric dams and the fact that they cause so much more harm to the environment than good. Jesse Osable is a professor of environmental science and the director of human environment programme at Rockefeller University in New York has lead research into hydroelectric dams and has concluded that hydroelectric energy is the least efficient of energy production methods and the most damaging to the landscape. Each hydroelectric dam can only produce 0.1 watts per square metre of land. The largest dam, the three gorgeous power station, at the Yangtze Sea river in China, stores billions of cubic metres of water, submerging land that was previously home to more than 1 million people. Surely this is a lot more harm to people than other possible methods of generating energy. My second point is about biofuel crops and other forms of renewables and their effect on the landscape. Wind energy and biofuel crops feared better in the study with both generating around 1.2 watts per square metre. Leading the renewable energy sources were solar cells, which used sunlight to create electricity at around six to seven watts to a square metre, but those solar panels need to cover thousands of kilometres to produce a sufficient amount of energy. A lot of the solar panels are placed in the desert where there is lots of sunshine and not many animals live there because it is so hot. That is perfect for the environment. I am sorry, does Scotland have any deserts? Still, solar panels would need to cover a massive area of 150,000 square kilometres to meet the whole of the USA's electricity demand for a year. To power in New York City alone, it would take 12,000 square kilometres of space, which is about the size of the state Connecticut. A comparison of solar energy—accepted? No-one is saying that we should rely on solar energy alone. There are many other forms of renewable energy that we can rely on and none of those forms cause harm to the environment. I will be talking about other forms of energy later. A comparison of solar energy with nuclear found that a hectare of photovolic cells was needed to produce the same amount of power as one litre of fuel in the core of a nuclear reactor would create. All of that land taken up by renewable projects would be devastating to Scotland's beautiful, diverse landscape—not accepted—such as Arthur Seat, a lovely example of Scotland's landscape, situated right outside of where we are debating today. When most people think of the way wind turbines affect the environment, they think of the production of wind turbines, but nobody thinks about how they are put up in the actual fields. There are mistaken, pleasant landscaping with what could be a massive industrial transformation of the landscape. A leading environmentalist has also stated that a fundamental credo of being green is that it causes minimal interference with the landscape. We should be farming less land, logging less forest and trawling less ocean, disturbing the landscape less and sparing land for nature, but all of these renewable sources of energy are incredibly invasive and aggressive, but they are aggressive with regard to nature. No, thank you. Renewables may be renewable, but they are not green. The report, which another professor on the scientists I mentioned earlier team produced, which appears in the international journal of nuclear governance, economy and ecology today, also criticised plans for widespread farming of biofuels. With current technology, the professor estimates that the 1 to 2 hectares of land would be needed to produce fuel for each of the world's 700m cars and other motor vehicles. A biomass generator would require 250,000 hectares of land to produce fuel to match the electricity output of a nuclear power station. Surely, using this much land to generate this small amount of energy is causing more damage to the environment than good. No, thank you. This professor concluded his work by saying, from an environmental point of view, that biofuels business is madness. My colleagues have presented to you with the facts and statistics needed to tell you the obvious fact that renewable energy projects cause more harm to the environment than good. Ladies and gentlemen, for those reasons, we, as the proposition, beg you to propose this motion. Thank you, Hermitage. I am now going to call on the second speaker to make the case for the opposition from Charleston. Madden Chair, judges, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen, Scotland is an amazing country, and we have an exciting, prosperous, safe, green future ahead of us. Thanks to renewable energy projects, because they certainly do not do more harm than good to the environment. My colleague Mr Cotkin convinced you of the benefits of renewable energy that is bringing to our planet, and I am going to look at the ways in which renewable energy projects are proving positive for Scotland. We have amazing natural resources here in Scotland, and we are using the infrastructure of renewable energy that is harmless to our environment. One extremely valuable industry in Scotland is tourism. The industry supports 200,000 jobs and generates over £4 billion a year. Scare mongers, such as the American Donald Trump, have said that onshore and offshore wind farms will cause the destruction of the tourist industry because they destroy the natural environment. Well, do the proposition really want to be on records as agreeing with a man like that? He is wrong, of course, as always, and the fact that he has pulled out plans to invade Aberdeen's coast proves that one renewable project has certainly done a lot of good. A mori pull on visitors to our garland but discovers that wind farms had no bad effects on tourism at all. Of those pulled, 80 per cent would actually love to visit a wind farm, and 91 per cent stated that turbines made no difference to their visit to the beautiful countryside. And my newt 1 per cent said that turbines had a negative effect on their visits and spoiled the environment. Well, there is always one, isn't there? With over 120,000 visitors to Whitley, it is obvious that tourism is fascinated by renewables, and I want to find out what Scotland is doing to lead the way in expanding this energy for the future. Rather than harming the environment and putting visitors off, the expansion of renewables in our landscape is increasing equal tourism. Many people consider wind turbines to be graceful modern sculptures. In fact, the turbines in Gia have been named the Dancing Ladies, and they have not done anything to harm the beautiful island or any of the plants and animals on it. Yes, please. Do you consider 100,000 of wind turbines clumped together to be graceful? A recent visitor to Whitley wind farm, the biggest wind farm in Scotland, called them beautiful modern elegant structures. People obviously think that they do. They do look beautiful. Let's consider it the horrific alternative that actually would cause more harm than good. Thank goodness that the plans for a coal-fired power station at 100 student were scrapped in 2012. No, thank you. It would have caused terrible damage to the surrounding flora and fauna. It would have pumped out 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. It would have destroyed 95 hectares of important feeding grounds for water birds. That's the size of 148 football pitches. The coal-fired power station would have caused visual, noise and air pollution. I can't imagine what visitors come to Scotland for. Yes, please. I'd again like to stress that the motion is not about coal-fired power plants or any fossil fuels. It is, in fact, about renewable energy and the problems and maybe the benefits with them. You and the proposition have dismissed all renewables. What is your left to power of Scotland if you got rid of all of them? The only thing you have left is fossil fuels if you don't want us living in caves again. No, thank you. Far better visitors to Scotland account of the gentle wish-wish of turbines, carefully placed, the noise and the smell of fossil fuel plants that are spewing out poison. Renewable energy will benefit the tourist industry because it will enable Scotland to stay clean, beautiful and healthy. Some people worry that the fishing industry will be affected by marine projects because they will pull out and disturb our waters. However, that is just not true. Many in the industry welcome renewables. Yes, please. We, as the proposition, are proposing to use nuclear as a viable option and greener methods of renewable energy. Do you really think that blowing up half of Scotland is good for the environment? No, thank you. The community and borough are concerned that the discovery of a rare coral in the waters on their island will scupper their plans to develop renewable energy from wind, wave and tidal power. It goes far to say that it would be as devastating as the highland clearances. Those fishermen are making it crystal clear that they welcome marine energy projects with open arms. They have been connected to their environment that has provided them with a living for centuries, and of course they would not want it harmed in any way. The Forestry Commission for Scotland is responsible for forests, woodland and open ground all over the country. It welcomes renewables and develops the potential of Scotland's national forest estate for wind and hydropower and expands the wood fuel at a bio-energy sector. It says that Scotland's forests are a national treasure and it is their privilege to be looking after it. In fact, the fact that it welcomes renewable energy projects is a clear indication that no harm will be caused to our environment. Earlier this month, BT unites a £300 million deal to buy enough energy to meet its needs of all the Scottish operations for the next 20 years from the fallible rig. BT Scotland director Brendan Dick said that BT was keen to meet its energy needs in an environmentally-responsible way. Energy Minister Fergus Ewing has commented that it is great news for Scotland and the environment that, at the company the size of BT, is sourcing its electricity in Scotland from renewable and low-carbon sources. Creating renewable energy projects will enable Scotland to reduce its reliance on polluting fossil fuels and keep the environment safe. Nobody in this room can deny that this is a positive step towards ensuring the safety of our environment, not harming it. Scotland is packed full of the resources that we need to reduce renewable energy that reduces pollution, slows climate change and protects our environment. It is for those reasons that I beg you to oppose the motion. I am now going to move on to the summation part of the debate and call on the third propositions speaker to sum up their case from hermitage. Thank you. Good afternoon. Honourable judges, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Chair. My name is Ryan Brown and I am here today to sum up the propositions argument on why renewables do more harm than good. I will start off by rebutting some points made by the first oppositions speaker Cameron. He had stated that renewables were some of the safest and best methods. In fact, they take up too much land. They destroy habitats and, compared to nuclear, they are not the best option. I would then like to go on to rebut some of the second points by Morfin. For instance, she probably was talking about the Chernobyl meltdown. Right now, it only affects 20 kilometres squared, all of which is full of wildlife and is starting to become a thriving community away from humans. Also, the Fukushima meltdown was caused by a natural disaster, which we in Scotland do not get. Also, we would like to stress, as me and my team have said two times already, that this motion is not about fossil fuels. It is about if renewables do more harm than good and if so, what should we use as an alternative? I will move on to sum up my team's argument, starting with my colleague Cameron's speech. Cameron started by talking about wind power and how it affects environments, mostly how it affects bats and birds. I would first like to outline, if you were agreeing with the 1 per cent, that 1 per cent of birds in Scotland is around about 140,000, so it is not a minute number to sweep aside. Then he went on to talk about how they are actually drawn to it with air pressure, and there is probably no way to change that. Ladies and gentlemen, noise pollution, which he also mentioned, is not a problem to be swept aside. It is one of the leading causes of animals and humans becoming deaf and a serious problem in the modern world. He then went on to talk about hydropower and its many flaws. For example, the Three Gorges Dam, which had to make 1 million people relocate, which is the equivalent of the whole of Glasgow and Edinburgh having to move to a different location. He also went on to talk about reservoir water being more stagnant than normal river water. This is a massive problem as it would kill off many varieties of fish and introduce too many types of algae, meaning that we would have to maintain it, costing taxpayers more money and wasting a lot of time. He also went on to explain the further downfalls of hydropower. For instance, Jesse Osable, a professor of environmental science, concluded a scientific study that hydropower was the most damaging to the landscape and also the least efficient energy source, including coal. He then went on to talk about the solar panels that you would need to get to power New York. You would need enough solar panels to fill the whole state of Connecticut to power just that one city. Also, a hectare of solar panels would be needed to produce the same as a litre of nuclear fuel. He also went on to explain that the wind farms are not just one or two sleek turbines. They are tristly on an industrial scale, including hundreds of thousands of wind turbines in one location, which would not, in my opinion nor the proposition's opinion and many people, I believe, would not like to go and watch hundreds of metal rods in the air flapping around their fans. Furthermore, due to the renewable energy, we should be disturbing nature—we shouldn't be disturbing nature—less sparing all the land, but renewables are very intrusive, and they take over habitats, destroying thousands and thousands of homes for these animals. For those reasons, the proposition begs you to propose the motion. Thank you very much, chairman. Finally, I would call on the third opposition speaker to sum up and close the debate in trust. Madam chair, judges, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen, before I go on to refute some of the proposition's misguided arguments, let's take a walk through the future without renewables that they would have us living. Look out over our once beautiful Scottish landscape. The view will be dreary due to the constant rain, owing to climate change caused by carbon emissions, because we failed to see the clean, stable future that renewables offered. In the deserted farmland, there isn't an animal to be seen, no crops growing anywhere. The farmers have been unable to continue to farm the land of their ancestors due to extortionate energy costs. In the harbour, as the tithe skulks in, you won't see harbour dolphins. No, they are long gone due to ocean acidification. The ocean is dead. This is certainly not a future that the youth of Scotland want to be a part of. We want to be a part of a Scotland that preserves its wonderfully diverse environment, and renewable projects are already proving that they can do this for us. The proposition claimed that wind turbines cause huge noise pollution, but surely the gentle whoosh whoosh of a turbine is much more preferable to a rumbling power station polluting our stunning environment. The proposition compared the effects of solar power to nuclear. However, I think that everyone here would agree that Chernobyl had a much more destructive impact to the environment than solar power ever could. Chernobyl does not affect humans anymore because it was so dangerous that everyone was relocated miles away or killed. It seems perfectly clear that renewable energy projects do not cause more harm to the environment than good. As my colleagues, Mr Cochran and Ms Carmichael have established, renewables are doing so much good for Scotland and indeed the whole world. Mr Cochran shocked us with facts about the danger that the planet is in from man-made disasters caused by finite fossil fuels that spew out poison. The benefits that renewables provide to the environment are immeasurable. Companies such as Artemis Intelligent Power are creating amazing things to help our environment. Hydraulic transmissions are used for foul things, but Artemis has changed all that and is producing hydraulic pumps and motors that keep our environment clean. Every company involved in a renewable project is committed to keeping our environment safe from harm. Take SSE renewables, for example. They have a system called our irresponsible house that ensures no environmental impact is caused by producing and distributing energy. They are determined to act in a responsible and sustainable way. Renewables will provide energy that won't harm our environment. In the 1970s, one Saudi oil minister said, the stone age didn't end for lack of stone and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil. He was right and it will end because renewables are offering us a clean, harmless alternative. Last month, Sir Richard Branson was speaking to delegates at the 14th All Energy Conference in Aberdeen. He told Callum Davidson of Highlands and Islands Enterprises that, to combat damage to the environment caused by climate change, we need more entrepreneurs in Scotland to get out and bring the dreams of renewable energy to reality. Scotland has an excess of the most abundant forms of power on earth and we would be crazy not to embrace the use of them with open arms because doing so will allow us to keep our environment safe. The proposition seems to think that renewables are causing harm, but Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the National Trust for Scotland and Save Scottish Seas are all welcoming renewables as a way to secure the environment and keep it safe for future generations. The proposition is saying no to renewable energy projects. When they should be roaring yes, we should all say yes to renewable projects because they are right for the future security of our planet. It is therefore obvious that we must all oppose the motion. Thank you. Both teams, the debate has now closed and I think that we should thank both Charleston and Hermitage for an excellent debate there. Thank you very much indeed. We are now going to have another break for the judges to deliberate and come up with our two finalists. You are going to be split into two groups and taken on a tour of this Parliament building, which I am sure you are going to find hugely interesting. We will announce the two finalists at about half past two, so you are going to have just over 20 minutes to have your tour and if everyone could reconvene in here just after half past, but definitely before 25 to 3. I believe, Claire, that they know what groups are in. Right. We are going to split you into groups now and we will move through this swiftly so that we can keep to time, please.