The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_1028 April 2008
The challenge of climate change is one of SPEED and SCALE.
We, the globe, have a single generational shot to meet the timescales required for action to avoid destructive, economically debilitating and life threatening climate change for future generations.
While we have some Kyoto-centered momentum, the beginings of global awareness and some unilateral action from countries, companies and individuals - I'm concerned that it's not enough, and that a miss, in climate terms (and concerning positive feedback mechanisms), is as good as a mile.
We, as a generation, are stuck with a problem which isn't 100% ours by creation, and whose beneficiaries are most yet to be born. We didn't want nor ask to be here, but we now collectively have the most grave of all responsibilities - whether we like it or not.
The UK should lead by example. We have to demonstrate to our Annex 1 peers how our population can work together to save energy on a massive scale, invest serious money in R&D and technology transfer and create the kind of policy framework which drives the kind of life-change which the goals require. It is not through the absolute greenhouse gas savings which the UK delivers that our impact will be measured, BUT through the unambiguous demostration that one of the most modern and flexible economies in the world can cut its green house gas dependency by 50-60% in a single generation and together improve the quality of the lives of its people.
Our concrete, measurable and replicable actions as a nation will be the key to our position as global climate change leaders.
Peter Sweatman
One aspect of the consequences of Global Warming seems to be ignored.
Farming for example is the vital part of life by which each of us survives. This country, like America is no longer "self sufficient" in producing what the population needs. Obviously this means transportation and the ensuing knock on effect of carbon emmissions.
The farming industry has been slowly erroded over the years and it is obvious somethiung needs to be done NOW not later. Personally I believe that people should be attracted back to farming here in the UK to provide local produce for local populations. Climate change will need experts in this area who are skilled in the growing of new crops, water conservation methods, and new cropping procedures. People need to be trained in these areas.
It will also mean more labour intensive farming to replace the heavy machinery now used to avoid carbon emmissions.
Unfortunately there are too many individuals concerned about their ability to drive a car and no concern over what the effects of a vast food shartage would entail.
Dennis Knight
I would first like to commend the initiative of opening up the debate on climate control to the wider public and the seeming willingness to adhere to advice offered.
The question of finding new renewable energy sources is no longer the issue, the economic risk of installing them is of much greater concern and one I feel politicians shy away from and blame existing technology. There is no shortage of creative initiatives to utilise energy from sources such as solar, wind, and thermal but there is a lack of legislation to install such methods. Often disregarded as an eyesore these measures are no worse than the existing power stations on display across the UK.
With such an emphasis on regeneration is it not possible to combine the two and during the demolition of city and town centres make way for viable options of installing and utilising such renewable energy technology? The problem is initial investment costs to 'go green' but if we 'bite the bullet' initially we pave the way for many more schemes to be implemented all of which could use exsisting energy infrastructure.
I am delighted with the effort made over the Olympic village but why limit it there where media attention is greatest, what about the urban regeneration that has hit our cities and towns hard, where are the solar panels, the wind turbines etc.? They can placed out of the way on roofs, in chimneys, air conditioning, and more, let's be creative. If they were on display I have witnessed far more obscure art around our centres.
Public buildings would be a good place to start, hospitals, schools and other services. How can it not be that simple when we let millions of pounds slip through our fingers every year?
Richard Young
How good to see the Rt. Hon. William Hague putting aside any party differences in his support of nuclear power. As an astrobiologist, and therefore someone who is primarily concerned with the study of life in the Universe, including life on this planet, I would urge everyone to read James Lovelock's latest book "The Revenge of Gaia". In it he makes it quite clear that the only form of energy that can be provided in sufficient quantity, and not further damage the planet's fragile atmosphere, is nuclear energy.
To those who fear nuclear power, I would point out that we already have a supreme example of the life-giving power of nuclear energy - the SUN! In fact, the whole Universe is nuclear-powered, making it the most natural form of energy in existence.
It is rare that I agree with anything Tony Blair says, but he's absolutely right in his support for nuclear energy - but get on with it before it is too late!
Jenny Russell
I agree that all new-build projects should make use of renewable energy, especially projects that the government are involved in. They should stop telling us what we should be doing and take an active lead. Actions speak louder than words.
Also am I the only one who finds it absurd that shops and businesses leave there lights (and god knows what else) on at night. I understand that companies want to attract customers but if I can't get into their shop at 1am then what is the point of the lights being on. Besides I am much more likely to be drawn to a socially responsible business who tackles these problems head on.
Emma Freeman
If we could Store electrical energy currently generated very inefficiently during the night time, we could run these plants at optimum load,Flywheel Battery technology exists, Its technically sound,safe and Clean.The added bennefits are that you can have A massive store, spread throughout the country, to cover peak loads, Ridethrough power in the event of power cuts.And enables storage of renewable generation too
Peter Fido
At what point, Mr Blair, will you accept that the current US Administration is a deeply flawed anti-environment cabal funded by polluting industries? The only viable response is to publicly and vigorously condemn GW Bush and cease ALL forms of political co-operation with his administration. Address yourself to the senate and congress. Deal with the governors and mayors. Speak directly with the people. Form relationships with the most likely candidates in 2008 on both sides (McCain and Clinton). But for the sake of us all, turn Bush into the pariah he deserves to be.
Simon Oliver
Nothing the UK does on climate change is going to make any difference unless the Govt are prepared to intervene in markets. Even many companies are now calling for tighter legislation. We need interventions such as laws banning 'standby' in electronic products, national planning policies to enforce 10% embedded renewables, and market interventions aimed at decreasing the journeys travelled by goods and people - challenging corporate globalisation. You cannot achieve all this within a market-led approach. The less responsible business voices are arguing for an approach that costs people more than it benefits them. When is the Govt going to realise this and stand up to them?
Karen Leach
We have been at the cutting edge of technology to reduce landfill and turn houshold waste into energy and biofuels. We can even reduce the amount in exiasting landfills. the power and energy creates no harmful toxins creates a healthy atmosphere.
So why is it nobody in the UK takes this seriously and puts up massive amounts of red tape to stop us helping the environemnt and developing these plants. We get more help and assistance from developing nations than the indusrtrialised world.
Daryl Poland
juhI am writing here to make a plea for the introduction of a HUGE public information campagin from the government. Friends of the Earth and others of course do a fantastic job of this, but there are many circles in which misconceptions still run rife, and where there is still a mystifying air of cynicism about what is sometimes perceived to be the exaggerated rantings of mad eco-lefties!
The government needs to amplify and increase the volume and regularity of its unequivocal support of green policies, stressing the severity of the problem.
A few ideas... apply a traffic light system to imported foods based on how far they've been flown and how they were produced. Let people know exactly what they can recycle and give them incentives to do it. Go MUCH further in giving people incentives to buy greener cars. Make all public transport vehicles MUCH more carbon efficient. Oblige businesses to turn off lights at night - have a look at canary wharf at 2am and you'll see what I mean. TELL US WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND WHY. TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING AND WHY. LOUDLY. RELENTLESSLY. NOW.
Clem Perry
juIt seems ironic that a Government that is so keen to talk about reducing emissions is actively encouraging a massive growth in aviation - more than doubling by 2030.
As no technological fix is likely within that timeframe, this increase in flights will lead to a very large growth in emissions which will counteract many og the savings made elsewhere.
Not only is this bad for the environment, but most of this growth in flights is outgoing tourists - causing a massive deficit.
All of this is of course enabled by the particularly lax tax regime that aviation enjoys - particularly relative to driving which is the main domestic way to access leisure activities. This encourages more leisure time and money to be spent abroad, more often, and this in turn causes spiralling emissions.
The steps to take here are clear:
1) immediately start to remove this unfair tax advantage - raising APD significantly would be a good first step
2) rethink the whole premise of the Air Transport White Paper - which looks ludicrous in light of $60/barrel oil, the Stern review and our urgency to tackle climate change
3) shape a workable method for aviation to join the ETS, but only as a mechanism to drive down its emissions - not to allow it to grow them by penalising core industries that don't have such favourable taxationRaising APD won't harm the poor - recent CAA and other figures show this. If the revenue raised was used to increase the zero-tax threshold, or to build better public transport, or insulate the homes of the poor - then all of these would be of far more direct benefit to the poor.
It is time to make a clear statement that tackling climate change will shape all areas of government policy, and if that means rethinking some conflicting policies then that should be face up to.
Jeremy Birch
More comments 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
