The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_1128 April 2008
I work daily with businesses and feel they continually take the brunt of the environmental charges with Packaging Regs, Climate Change Levy etc. It's time for individuals to make a change with Government resources..
I think the government should made it compulsory for all new houses to use renewable energy sources (solar, wind, chp)and provide substantial grants for homeowners or builders to make this possible. If nearly every house in Greece manages to have solar panels, why can't we afford to make this change. At present this technology is too expensive for individuals to purchase, but by taking the next step to ensure builders incorporate it into housing, thus improving green home designs further, it will soon become the norm across the UK.
Kelly Eardley
Of course FoE are no friends of humans or human development, they're happy for the poor to stay impoverished and diseased. Climate change is just a means to achieve the goal of putting major constraints on human development and getting us to live how Lord Tony (take your pick which one) deems it appropriate, and that certainly means no travelling for pleasure for the worthless white trash. Now jet setting around the world as a sanctimonious environmentalist, that's fine, as Tony Juniper has done this year to Malaysia, South Africa, Amsterdam and Nigeria, as well holidaying in Slovakia. The rest of us should be video conferencing but not climate scientists, over 6000 of them have to fly to Nairobi for COP-12.
Action on climate change is getting more and more urgent. Not because we are nearing any catastrophic tipping point but because the real climate, as opposed to the virtual climate of computer models, is refusing to play ball. Temperatures have stopped increasing in most recent years, sea levels are behaving much as they have for thousands of years, hurricanes are sticking to their natural cycles, polar bear numbers are increasing or stable, etc. The doomsayers are reduced to cherry picking local weather events. If Tony Blair and his world government allies don't make headway soon, the people are going to realise they've been sold a pup and will resist being told how to live their lives. But then if climate change doesn't work, there's always the threat of global terrorism. How long have we got to save the world, 45 weeks, 45 months or 45 years?
Paul Buddery
I'm sure there are many individuals who activly commit to reducing their energy usage be it switching off the tv or using energy saving lightbulbs but at the same time there are vastly more people who have no knowledge of and more importantly no desire to learn about these important factors in saving energy. As sad is it may sound i believe it to be true that there are people who simply do not care and it is these people who must be addressed. You cannot rely simply on the conscience of people to make these changes, laws must be brought into effect to do it for people. A nanny state in some instances might just be what is required. I'm not talking about making poeple turn off their tv's or go to jail! i'm talking about making companies who sell tv's build them without a standby option etc. Why not set tighter standards that must be met with regards to white goods or lightbulbs, that way you have no choice but to save energy? Likewise, is it not possible to simply declare that all new cars built or imported into the UK must be hybrid or run on environmentally friendly fuel. Of course the economic costs would no doubt be staggering, but don't you think we have reached the point where our environment and our children's futures ought to be more important than money. If it's possible to build electric cars or cars that run on hydrogen then why are you not doing everything you can to give tax breaks or helping hands to companies who are talking this brave stand? After all, what happens when the oil runs out? we'll have to change at some point, why not make it a reality now? I'm not particularly well versed on the debate and my ideas may seem simple or foolish, and i'm sure Mr Blair has many fine excuses as to why they would not be viable, but sometimes it just seems we should forget about pandering to industry and money and take decisive action. Who cares if the public complains about a rise in tax to fund wind farms or green energy, they'll have forgotten about it five months later, it's for our own good. I'm tired of hearing you, Mr Blair, and your government, trying to please everyone, i would rather be told taxes are rising that's that, the money will be spent on a better future for us all. I'm happy with that and people who aren't are idiots (these are the same people who complain about windmills being eyesores - maybe they'd rather have five massive cooling towers billowing out steam all day?). It's time for leadership Mr Blair, treat us mean - we'll thank you for it later!
Andrew Meek
Perhaps Blair might be more credible on this subject if he were to: 1. Deprive Ministers of official cars, 2. Stop jetting around the world as part of his bid to be a statesman, 3. Eliminate the waste endemic in all government departments, for example by not "rebranding" failing departments with a new name, which neccesitates more printing of forms, leaflets and letterhead. and finally, by removing the hot air and CO2 from parliament - they're not needed now that he's given the EU so much power over Britain's affairs, and equipping every home with an internet link would enable the population to vote electronically on every subject.
Malcolm Hill
There does not seem to be enough recognition amongst environmentalcampaigners and politicians about the role of gardeners (especially organic)in increasing/reducing climate change. There are many issues such as recycling; driving to the garden centre; avoiding nitrogen fertilisers; buying green products;and especially growing food at home to avoid energy used in production and transport and food miles (ETC). We need to engage people through their interests, which is the approach the organisation Green Gardeners has taken for some 15 plus years. If we think that there are some17 million people who potentially or actually garden in Britain and some 380 million who have a garden or small-holding in the European Union, can we not see what potential impact these people can have in addressing climate change?
John Bond
In the 1970s when the UK faced a real energy crisis the government had no option but to take direct action to ration energy consumption regardless of the economic impact, which was, of course, severe and had a lasting effect.
If global warming today is a real disaster waiting to happen rather than a myth designed to raise taxes then surely actual action would have been taken by now instead of endless debate.
Those of you who are asking Blair to pressure George W Bush to alter America's policy have unrealistic expectations. Blair has no influence with Bush whatsoever. He only supported Bush on the Iraq war because Bush wanted to fight that war. For his support, Blair will have been promised access to the lucrative Republic speaking circuit from which he will earn his millions, like Thatcher and Major before him. Blair cares for nothing other than his own private wealth and absolutely nothing for the UK or its people.
Simon Walters
Transport is the sticking point with tackling UK emissions. Whilst technology can only get us some of the way that is needed to make some cuts, transport emissions are still set to rise. This is because the government is encouraging traffic growth with its huge road building plans. Why is the government ploughing £5 billion into widening the M25 when it will just fill straight up with more polluting traffic? Why is £3.7 billion being spent on widening the M1? The government has some big decisions to make soon on transport spending - not least whether or not to approve the £2.9 billion M6 widening. These huge sums of money dwarf the amounts being spent on solving climate change. Roadbuilding is taking us in the wrong direction for cutting UK CO2 emissions. With road transport contributing 21 per cent of UK emissions it is vital to start reeducing traffic growth and ending road building.
Rebecca Lush
Martin Ferguson has hit the nail on the head. It is about time everyone woke up to this sham.
Also,why do the scientists & weather experts who DO NOT subscribe to the carbon pollution theory never get their views heard ? I am certainly convinced that global warming is just one of the normal climatic changes that have occured throughout Earth's history.
John King
I am Editor of an International Journal for Meteorology and I am getting highly irate over all these issues. Climate change is a NATURAL process and CANNOT be prevented or stopped by us. We populate a very MINUTE area of the earth. 95% of greenhouse gases is WATER VAPOUR and most of the earth is water. Climate change has begun, whether it is down to us or not, noone can ever know, because the records just do not go back far enough) and we will NOT be able to stop it.
Why are we wasting money, time, energy but more seriously, why are we being BRAINWASHED by the Government who are clearly just out to make a LOT of money out of us, when we should be trying to research what might happen as a consequence to climate change, which is still uncertain so we can prepare and survive it.
As one famous International Scientist just said to me, "Climate Change is another Darwinist challenge" and currently we are failing because we are trying to prevent the unpreventable.
We only have data which goes back 30 years. Coincidentally, we NOTICED a change when when we began using more fuel. That is all it is - a coincidence. We have NO idea what happened millions of years back, what killed the dinosaurs even, for instance. All we have are theories. The earth's climate is constantly changing and its warmth fluctuates naturally every thousand or so years to compensate for chemical imbalances which occur naturally from water vapour, volcanic eruptions, changes in our weather, changes in the sun even, to name but a few.
There is too much UNKNOWN yet to prevent something as huge as this. But we COULD put things in place to survive it if we didn't waste time trying to prevent the unpreventable.
Our climate is vast, it is controlled by several things, not just gases in the air. Gases disperse anyway when they reach a certain height so they have NO bearing on our climate in any way at all. All of this is just a complete and utter nonsense.
However, I'd be surprised if this comment even MADE this board because noone with anything sensible to say ever gets heard in this so called one sided "debate".
Samantha Hall
Instead of pursuing a nuclear solution to the UKs future power generation needs when all commercial operators are abandoning it as uneconomical & waste producing this government should look into passing legislation that would dictate that all new housing built must be as "green" as possible; ie: with the use of PV grid feed panels, domestic wind turbines, rainwater collection systems, improved insulation & glazing standards, reed bed sewerage systems and low energy lighting as standard minimum requirements.
Most new build companies make large profits & so the cost of housing should not be too adversely affected, with the added advantage of the fact that such mandatory requirements would mean that the price of domestic sustainable technology would be lowered due to the effect of economies of scale.The government should also look again at sea power & adding smaller grid feed wind turbines to existing housing estates.
Sally Unwin
There is very good evidence and analysis to show that Europe, including the UK, can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions from electricity generation, ***and phase out nuclear power at the same time***. Nuclear power is not needed, it will divert funds away from much better solutions, and we can avoid the many headaches arising from nuclear power (see http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/ ¬
no_nukes.htm).These things are described in great detail in the 'TRANS-CSP' report, commissioned by the German government.
An important part of the scenario described in that report is the development of a collaboration amongst countries of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East to develop the enormous potential of solar power in hot deserts.
This collaboration offers many advantages, especially for countries in the world's sun belt (see www.trec-uk.org.uk/ ¬
csp_sections/csp_bonuses.htm).Copies of the TRANS-CSP report, and much other information, may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm .
Gerry Wolff
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
