 Welcome back everyone, and we're now going to proceed with the semi-final, where, as you heard, the motion is, this house believes that renewable energy projects cause more harm to the environment than good. The first two semi-finalists to take place are Can You See and Portree, and Can You See High School will be talking for the motion, and they are Ruri MacDonald, Beth Micl and Polina Pologova, and, speaking against the motion, are Portree High School, and that's Callan Campbell, Maria MacAskill and Edna Moran. So I'd like to start by inviting the first speaker to open the debate for the proposition from Can You See. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, judges, madam chair and fellow debaters. My name is Ruri MacDonald. My colleagues and I are going to be proposing the motion. This house believes that renewable energy does more harm to the environment than good. Today, I shall focus on why wind energy does harm. My colleague, Ms Micl, shall go into further depth about our arguments, and speak mainly of where renewable energy does more bad than good, and Ms Pologova shall summarise her points and close our argument. Today, we shall persuade you of the harms renewable energy does to our precious environment. I shall start by explaining what these harmful structures on the hills do, with the massive blades. Yes, you guessed it, the iconic wind turbine. It's great that we are finding solutions to save our planet, but what people don't realise is that renewable energy actually causes more harm to the environment than good. Birds have been raised over the noise produced by the rotor blades, visual impacts and deaths of the bats and birds that fly into the turbines. Only a minute, 1 per cent of birds are even in danger of getting hurt by a wind turbine. There's actually been many deaths by birds and bats, and what are the RSPBs doing about that? They're not even trying to help to prevent that from happening. Like all machinery, the noise produced by the wind turbines can be very disturbing, and with many those situated near to their homes have found them to be very annoying. Most wind turbines are situated in remote areas. The countryside, for example, is tranquil, calm and quiet. Well, not with a wind turbine it won't be. Scotland is profound for its breathtaking scenery and beautiful landscapes, but when you put a wind farm in the middle of it, it just doesn't work. Why not consider placing more wind farms out of sea, some would say? Yes, but that means transporting them, using fossil fuels, and therefore causing more harm to the environment than good, and we're back to square one. Do you really think that Mr Donald Trump chose to build his international gofflicks website in Scotland because of the amazing wind turbines? Of course not, and many would agree. I'm going to wreck from the Trump international gofflicks website. I quote, When I saw this piece of land, I was overwhelmed by the imposing dunes and rugged Aberdeenshire coastline. I knew that this was the perfect site for my Trump international Scotland. I have never seen such an unspoiled and dramatic seaside landscape. These opportunities to expand Scottish tourism and economy would be lost if we litter our landscapes with these bird-killing machines. No thank you. Cats and birds, known as protected animals, or are they? Because of the sheer size of the turbines, yes, please. If renewable energies are that bad and we're not to use them, what are we going to do when our fossil fuels run out? Please bear with me, I confirm my call. We have many experienced scientists and technicians who need to develop new ways of clean, great renewable energy that we can rely on, which are much better, as I was saying. The price for intentionally harming or killing them could lead to six months' imprisonment and up to £5,000 fine. So why are we letting such a monument to be built, even when we know that it does significant harm? We have certain areas protected for bats and birds, which do not allow building or tampering, but you can't tie down an animal to a certain place, especially if they have the gift of light. We need to let them explore. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure that you'd agree that to continue to plant this renewable source would be ridiculous. Madam chair, ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, please join me in agreeing that renewable energy does in fact cause more harm to the environment than good. Thank you. Thank you very much to Can You See for opening our debate, and I'd now like to invite the first Opposition Speaker to outline their case. Portrait. Good morning, Madam chair, judges, ladies and gentlemen, and my fellow debaters. Today, my team will be opposing the motion. This house believes that renewable energy projects cause more harm to the environment than good. Let's be honest, who can truthfully sit here today really believing they do? Who can truthfully believe that fossil fuels will be a better alternative for environment? Fossil fuels over the years have been the result of many bird torturing oil spills, terrifying fires due to gas leaks, and, possibly most obvious of all, fossil fuels are the biggest culprit for global warming. The first argument will be one that I've just mentioned. Oil spillages happen when tankers carrying large amounts of fossil fuels run aground spilling their cargo all over the surrounding landscape. The Gulf War oil spill in 1991. Six million barrels of US oil were spilled all over the Persian Gulf, driving no less than 50 species to new extinction. These oil spillages could come from any boats. It doesn't have to be from fossil fuels. To have renewable energy such as marine energy put in place, you're going to need boats to bring the parts, and these boats could just have the same oil spillages. Do you think that the oil that is taken on boats carrying renewable energies will be anything close to the amount of oil that is taken on boats that are actually transporting the oil to other areas? Probably not. How much of this oil, though, has been soaked up by the ground and is never going to be able to be retrieved again? How much of this oil has been covered and drunk by in-animals? They probably died minutes later. How much of this could have been stopped if we only had these revolutionary renewables sooner? My second argument is that we hear from High School about birds being killed by the turbines. However, in reality, wind turbines are the lowest of all the main causes of bird deaths behind domestic cats and all that. Scotland's wind farm provides more than half of the UK. I'm sorry, half the energy? No, well, half of Scotland's birds. Deaths of birds, sorry. Deaths of birds? It's nothing like half. It's only closer to 1 per cent than 50 per cent. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from. In reality, no species have ever become close to endangered from these wind turbines. In reality, we need to stop worrying about this. What is happening is that we are losing a completely viable option for our energy because of a problem that at the moment doesn't even exist. My third argument today is one that we believe to be the strongest. Renewables were created as a carbon-neutral form of generating our energy. They do exactly that. Renewables cause no harm to the environment. Renewables produce carbon emissions. The manufacturing of renewables produces carbon emissions. Geothermal energy, when you drill down into the centre of the earth to really secede your greenhouse gases, all of those types of renewable energy do harm our environment. I'm aware that geothermal and biomass both produce carbon dioxide, but there are other options. The emissions produced in the manufacturing are a minute fraction of what are produced by fossil fuels and geothermal and biomass. We are saying that we should give up these revolutionary things in place of fossil fuels, which can you see believed to be the future? No, thanks. I know that any smart individual already can see that renewables are the clear, obvious and soon-to-be only choice Scotland has for the future. It's time we start using them before people like the proposition ruin our planet because they still believe that fossil fuels are the future. Thank you very much. No, thanks. Thank you to Portray and I'm now going to call on the second speaker to make the case for the proposition from Can you see? Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, judges, honourable chair and fellow delegates. My name is Beth Mickel. My colleague Mr McDonald has already addressed the motion, so today I'm going to let you into a secret. Renewable energy is not actually beneficial to our environment. As a proposition, we believe that renewable energy does more harm to the environment than good. The hype around renewable energy saving our planet is completely false. Renewable energy does more bad than good, let me explain. In our desperate attempt to make ourselves feel better about abusing our planet for so long, we have so hastily pieced together this solution that we have overlooked the fact that it is not actually very beneficial. Bioenergy is thought to be a clean solution to global warming, but it really isn't all it seems to be. Bioenergy has a number of flaws which have been overlooked in our obsession with renewable energy. The burning of organic materials actually produces lots of greenhouse gases. Not only will it be creating holes in our ozone layer, but we will be cutting down forests and demolishing farmlands to provide growing space for these organic materials. We are saying that renewable energy is going to cause holes in our ozone layer, but so are fossil fuels. That may be true, but if we have fossil fuels in place already, we do not need to manufacture new ways of making them. If we take our time, we are not going to run out of oil just yet. We can produce a new cleaner type of renewable energy, which is actually beneficial to our environment, because at the moment it's not. Hydro power, no thank you. Hydro power is another example of renewable energy gone wrong. Everyone loves the idea of being clean and eco-friendly so much. They don't stop to think about the harm they're actually doing. Hydroelectric jams cause mass flooding, destroying the surrounding environment. The flooding destroys animal habitats such as woodlands and marshes. It will also destroy farmlands on which farmers rely for their income. That could be catastrophic for farms and could take them years to recover. Hydrojams also cause changes in the river structure, which could potentially make the dams unsafe. If you're beginning to think that hydro energy might not be that great, you need to even bring up the damage that those dams do to our river wildlife. Fish, birds and mammals will all be affected by those dams. No thank you. You may be thinking, oh, that's only hydro and bio energy. We still have wind power. Well, no. Wind power does more harm to the environment than good as well. The giant turbines necessary to produce wind energy cause a lot of damage to animal habitats. Wind turbines kill up to 39 million birds per year. The building and transporting of these mammoth turbines creates lots of greenhouse gases, which makes more holes in our own zone layer. Their manufacture also uses up a lot of our energy. No thank you. Offshore windfarms affect marine life and habitats. Just because they're out of sight does not mean they're out of mind. They still affect our environment. I hate to break it to you, but geothermal energy is just as bad, if not worse. The idea behind geothermal energy is drilling down into the earth's core to harvest the heat. The problem with the idea is that when we release heat from below the ground, we also release greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Drilling down into the centre of the earth also affects the stability of the ground, which would prove to be extremely dangerous for people and animals in the area. Solar energy also does more harm than good to the environment, as when the panels are manufactured, not only does it use up a lot of energy and produce greenhouse gases, but hazardous waste is produced in their production. How to safely dispose of this waste is the question, and having it leak into our environment could prove to be catastrophic. Renewable energy is most definitely the future, but may I stress future? The technology is just not well developed enough to do more good than bad to our environment. Before releasing these abominations to our planet, we need to work on developing them more and making sure they're actually going to be beneficial. What could be worse than when, in a few decades' time, we realise that what we've unleashed on our worlds has made the crisis of global warming worse? No, thank you. We will be out of oil, we will have wasted all our money on these unbeneficial energy sources, and we will be living in the dark. You may think that this sounds like a dystopian future from a book or a novel, but I can assure you it's very real. Renewable energy is not the solution. It's just going to make things worse. If you cannot see this and you have been swept away by the big talk of saving our planet, then heed my warning. We will run out of fossil fuels, we will run out of uranium, and when we do, we will have nothing. Renewable energy will have made it worse. If you care about our civilisation, our way of life, our technological era, then you must agree. Renewable energy does more harm to our environment. Thank you. I am now going to call on the second speaker to make the case for the Opposition from Portrait. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, fellow judges, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen. As main speaker for our team, the Opposition, I would firstly like to refute some of the points made by the Opposition before I go on to talk about our arguments in more detail. Can you see high school have claimed that renewable energy is not good? But neither is fossil fuels. So what are we going to do to provide energy? Well, they have claimed that scientists are going to create a cleaner, greener way of producing energy, but for all we know, that could take years and years. Then what will we do? Sit in a dark nest because we didn't get renewable energies up and running? No. The motion that we are debating this afternoon is that renewable energy projects cause more harm to the environment than good. We do not support this motion. Renewable energies are a good, reliable source of energy. It is estimated that around 50 per cent of our energy has come from renewable sources, and our Scottish Government has put forward a promising, achievable goal, which aims to have 100 per cent demand for electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. We are currently doing extremely well with this, and this goal will help us to provide a positive, brighter future. Our main points for today's debate are oil spillages and other fossil fuels catastrophes that are causing extreme harm to wildlife, much more than renewable energies. Wind turbines are the lowest main cause of bird deaths in the world, making them safe as well as clean. What about the animals that are dying because we are digging up too many fossil fuels? Oil and other fossil fuels let out so much CO2 into our atmosphere, whereas the majority of renewable energies let out none. Oil spillages are something that have terrible effects. Yes, please. You say that renewable energies are the majority of those that do not let out any carbon emissions, but actually, it is a good question that we need to think about. There are more renewable energy sources than the ones that you have just mentioned, and they do not release CO2. Oil spillages are something that have terrible effects, regardless of how big or small they are. The BP oil spillage, for instance, was back in 2010, and it is now in the UK. It is now in the UK, and the BP oil spillage, for instance, was back in 2010, and it lasted five months with fatal consequences. During the spill, 7,000 birds were brutally murdered, 600 dead sea turtles were washed ashore, and 153 dolphins, which contribute to our tourist industry, were murdered, wiped out. Although the animal deaths were awful, the fact that 11 innocent people died is awful. Please tell me again how good oil really is. You are talking about how the dolphins were affected by the oil spillages. If we put in marine technology, we are pushing out all our wildlife, so we will not have any to save. Dolphins and other marine animals are not actually affected by marine energy technologies. The cost of the whole spillage was $40 billion, enough to cure world hunger for the whole year. The BP company has claimed to have paid £7.9 billion out in compensation to almost half a million claims. That is just one oil spillage. Imagine the effects if you add all the oil spillages that we have ever had together. Money can be returned, but life can't. Is oil really worth that? That brings us nicely on to our second point of today's debate. Wind turbines, as well as being the lowest cause of bird deaths in the world, are safe as well as clean. Renewable energy is not like oil. Thousands of animals aren't killed every so often. In fact, only 1 per cent of birds are even in danger of getting hurt by a wind turbine. Renewable energy is also safe. No-one on record has ever been hurt by a wind turbine. It is very sad that you cannot say the same for oil production. Wind turbines are a huge advantage to our country. They do not release CO2 like fossil fuels do. There are enough wind turbines in the UK to power over 1.3 million homes. Throughout its working life, a wind turbine can produce 80 times the amount of energy used to make it. Once its life is over, it can be recycled, but it is built to last over 20 years. Our third point in today's debate is that oil and other fossil fuels let out huge amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere, whereas the majority of renewable energy forms let out none. Cars in the UK release 18.3 million tonnes of CO2 per day. You say that fossil fuels release CO2, but the trees will take it in, all the plants and trees that we have. The more that we are producing fossil fuels, the more space we have to clear to do that. That means that we are not going to have as much to help to soak up our CO2 emissions. 2 billion tonnes of CO2 is released from all the aircraft coming from Heathrow every year. The average UK citizen emits 15 tonnes of CO2. CO2 is released in day-to-day things, whether we know it or not, such as wind boggings, swimming pools, web searches, text messages, but if we are powering all those things through renewable energies, we can be assured that it is not damaging our planet. Burning one bottle of oil, however, can produce 4.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Generating energy from the wind? Well, none. That is because wind energy does not need fossil fuels to power it. A wind turbine is simply three long blades on a base that spins with the wind. Fossil fuels are actually produced in the manufacture of those. We are not actually doing any positive impacts to our environment, are we? It may be a small amount, but it is still impacting on our environment. It is such a tiny fraction, although we did say that no fossil fuels are used to power the wind turbine, not to manufacture it. The spinning wind turns a generator that produces electricity. Easy. You may argue that wind turbines are shutting down power stations, but that is not true. They are simply becoming outdated and are not reaching EU safety standards. British taxpayers now have to fork out over £70 billion to deal with toxic waste and decommission existing nuclear power stations. In a time when it is hard to make ends meet and jobs are fewer and far between, we simply cannot afford to have to deal with those things. That is why renewable energy is the way forward. Solar power, when installed, is pollution free. All that is happening in that is that energy is collected from the sun and unlike oil, coal and gas, that is recklessly dug up from deep underground, destroying animal habitats and wiping away anything that comes in its path. It is then sold to millions of people around the world at extremely high prices and extremely high costs to our planet. Solar energy is not like that. It is clean. It is sad to find out, though, that in the US alone, pollution from power plants has led to the deaths of over 30,000 people per year, not acceptable. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that by now we have told you exactly why renewable energy is not harming our environment. Renewable energy is the best way forward and is our key to a cleaner, greener, bigger, better, smarter future. Thank you. Thank you, Portray. We are now going to move on to the simulations from both sides and, as a reminder, no points of information during the simulations. Can I call on the third proposition, to sum up their case? That's from Can You See. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, honourable chair and fellow delegates. My name is Polina Palgova. My colleagues, Mr MacDonald and Ms Mikkel, have explained the motion and I will continue to agree that renewable energy does in fact have a more negative rather than positive impact on the environment. First of all, I would like to start with a few points of rebuttal. You have said that renewable energy is safe. The answer is not. Solar power actually produces a disease called silicolysis and the production of solar panels produces hazardous waste that harm our environment. Renewable energy, as you say, is the answer to all our problems. Well, in the 1960s, nuclear energy was said to be the answer and how did this go down? Not well at all. And also, you say that the fossil fuels will run out. Well, this isn't until 2020. That's years away and with the advanced technological steps that we are taking, we have the time to create renewable energy that's safe for our environment. As I was saying, we have all heard it more than once. Renewable energy is the best way forward. It is the way to save the world, etc. Well, as the saying goes, you can't believe everything you hear. We are all under the impression that renewable energy will fix all our problems, secure a bright future for humanity when, in fact, this said-to-be solution creates more problems than it solves. A huge problem that springs to mind is wind power. The tall bladed structures that rain over our landscape. What harm could they possibly do? Those wind farms may generate power for our country but are responsible for killing thousands of birds and bats every year. But no, they're completely harmless. Our wildlife is already suffering due to global warming and climate change. The last time I heard, renewable energy was supposed to be environmentally friendly. Wind turbines are also considered unappealing by not only the locals but tourists as well. Tourism is such a vital part of our industry that we depend on. We can't afford to jeopardise it by cluttering our landscape with man-made objects rather than trees. So now, not only does our wildlife not matter, but neither do the voices of our people. Ladies and gentlemen, let's take a look at biomass. The energy-type many households and schools over Scotland are switching to for their benefit. It may be time to reconsider your opinion on bioenergy when I say that this ozone-friendly energy source produces more greenhouse gases than gasoline. I'm pretty sure that that wasn't included in the information book. I'm pretty sure that this is not the way to save our planet. But why not a better choice of renewable energy? Solar power perhaps? Solar energy is not at its prime here in Scotland where we're lucky to have the occasional sunny day. Even though solar panels work without the sun using diffusive solar radiation, why invest so much in something that isn't reaching its full potential? This finance could save someone's life in hospital or ensure someone's future with a good education, even better be used to fund a new, reliable and eco-friendly type of renewable energy. Marine energy isn't something we should applaud either. Yet again, we are responsible for destroying our oceans and killing our marine life. If renewable energy is so good for the environment, then why are the polar ice caps still melting? How come the Great Barrier Reef is still dying? You tell me, the list is endless. I hope my colleagues and I have been able to convince you that renewable energy does more bad to the environment than good. Being the intelligent people you are, you must agree that to say otherwise is barely creditable. We are destroying our plants. We are destroying our people. And we are destroying our planet. Dear audience, I'm sure you won't walk away today knowing that the destruction of our world is in your hands. I beg you, please oppose this motion. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can you see? Finally, I'll call on the third opposition speaker to sum up and close the debate from Poetry. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, fellow debaters, judges, ladies and gentlemen. Before I go on to my speech, I would like to hear a few of the arguments made by the proposition. You say that this disease given by solar power is like silicosis or something. It's very rare and what's better than a few diseased people that can be cured or a forever diseased atmosphere with no cure. And another, you say what you think about wind turbines. That is a matter of opinion. Now, as our team's last speaker, I would like to consolidate our team's argument that is opposing the motion that this house believes renewable energy projects are doing more harm than good. We have heard that the key arguments are oil spillages and other fossil fuel catastrophes cause extreme harm to wildlife more than renewables, wind turbines are actually the lowest main cause of bird deaths in the world, and fossil fuels lay out huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere whereas renewables let out none. Before I go on, I would like to go over a few things about the cost. The cost of renewable energy do have initial high capital costs in terms of installation and maintenance of these farms and stations, but this is very little compared to the enormous cost of extracting fossil fuels and biomass stations which are extremely high, where they are low for nuclear energy and zero cost for many renewable energies. The next thing that I would like to say is that the very serious problem with the warming of the world's atmosphere and seas associated with increasing CO2 emissions with the result of widespread changes in different environments and ecosystems. If that remains unchecked, it will have devastating consequences both for people and the natural world. One only needs to think of the number of cities and human individuals living just above sea levels. Can you imagine the effects of a 10-metre rise in the sea? Think of London, think of New York, think of any number of cities and think of the pictures you've seen of New Orleans after it was flooded after the typhoon in 2005. In short, you are looking at a Noah's Ark type scenario. That shows that renewable energies are not doing more harm than good. The next point that supports our team's argument is in regard to the CO2 emissions. The global average for the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per person per year is 5,800 kilograms. However, in Britain, we are emitting over 13,000 kilograms per person per year. That is more than doubled the global international average. We should feel very ashamed by this. It is a disgrace that we have brought this label upon ourselves. That is why we have to do everything we can to reduce our CO2 emission levels. One option would be to radically and dramatically alter our lifestyles to reduce the amount of power energy we use. That would mean that me or you would have to reduce our levels of private motor cars. That means that there are no casual trips into town to shop or go to the movies. It means that flying away abroad for the summer holidays would become a thing of the past. Our use of electrical devices at home, such as TVs, computers, bridges and our mobile phones, would all need to be reduced, which means that we can all wave goodbye to Wi-Fi. If that all seems a bit dismal and unacceptable, it is time now to get serious about generating energy without CO2 emissions. Realistically, that means phasing out our conventional coal burning power stations as quickly as possible while developing the widest range possible of power generating renewable energy sources. As I said earlier, the initial cost of constructing and installing one of these green power plants can be quite high, but this is a great deal less than the financial cost of extracting the fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil. We also believe that the human cost of these industries are unacceptable, such as the human right abuses relating to the way that minors have been treated and exploited historically and even today in some developing countries. Have you ever actually considered what it's like to work not just for one day, but a whole working lifetime in these conditions? Should we allow this to continue in the 21st century? Even in recent years, there have been incidents where quite large numbers of workers have been trapped or sometimes even killed underground. Lastly, an underestimated cost is the environmental damage associated with oil spillages and other environmental pollution caused by extraction and transportation of conventional fossil fuels. For example, on the coast of Cornwall, the Tory canyon boat was wrecked on the rocks with a massive oil spillage into the sea, which killed numerous seabirds and other mammals in the area. We live in north-west Skye, where you will often see oil transporting boats taken in the legal shortcut through the minch, and it's only a matter of time before one of them gets wrecked and our ecosystems go with it. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope we have persuaded you by the very serious harm caused by the use of conventional fossil fuels, and the urgent need to produce our energy as much as humanly and technically possible using environmentally friendly technology. I urge you to support our team the opposition. Thank you. Thank you very much, Portree, and the debate has now closed, but I would like to thank both Portree and can you say for their excellent debate. Thank you very much. To keep us on time, I would like to invite Hermitage Academy to take their place for the motion, and I'd like to invite Charleston Academy to take their place against the motion, and we're just going to do a straight turnover.