The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_1228 April 2008
putting more tax on vehicles licensing (road tax) and fuel is not the answer to the problem!
when you have the likes of USA, RUSSIA, CHINA and INDIA which are pumping out pollutions like it is going out of fashion!!!!!!
they are vast countries all of which in my option are doing the most damage to the environment, and until they start to cut emotions then what the UK do will be futile.
Tim Willis
Come on Tony, please please please lead the way on the path to cutting CO2 emissions - we're happy to do our bit, but things have gone too far now and the only way we can make a change is for you to set some proper caps for emissions. If we lead the way maybe the other countries will follow suit. This is the biggest threat on our worls we can ever imagine and everyone I speak to is scared about it - we need you more than ever to quite literally save the world!
Nicola Elliott
I'm a member of a local Friends of the Earth group (West Cumbria)and we have worked hard on the Big Ask campaign so I'm pleased to see a climate change bill in the Queens Speech. Well done Mr Blair. However I am worried that, wheb the Bill is drafted it won't contain annual targets and it will be just a lot more hot air.
We need to be certain that every action is resulting in significant cuts (either because it is itself creating a significant cut, or because it is being taken by many people) and we can't be certain if we aren't monitoring and reporting annually, and chacking progress against annual targets.
Strong laws backing strong annual targets please otherwise out thousands of supporters will not be satisfied.
Jill Perry
Tony Blair is not as much on FoE's side as he wishes to think. He has been deeply insulting to environmentalists about their views on nuclear power. He is reported to say that we "don't understand" nuclear and that our objections are based on old-fashioned technology. Well Mr Blair, I think many of us know more about nuclear than you and your advisors. My own objections to it are just as valid with the new generation of power stations as the old. Indeed I used to support nuclear until I discovered how damaging it could be to the environment. Also, if it were to be a valid solution to climate change here, then logically it is also valid in every country on earth no matter how hostile the regime is there. But in truth it is a problem wherevever it is built. So please listen to what we have to say rther than always listening to the biased opinions of the pro-nuclear lobby and the "wisdom" of George W Bush!
Simon Tompsett
I am becoming tired of listening to the debate on climate change.The debate is over.It is happening.Tony Blair tells us quite rightly that it is the most important thing happening to us at the present time.I am doing the best I can personally and within my business but unless the government creates a framework for us all to adhere to,quite simply we may as well go home and watch television.
Keith Elliott
heyyy
im only 14 but i want a say in this too. personallyi think the best answer to stop global warming is if evert single person did a little bit. for example - walking cuts down on carbon monoxide comissions, turning off the lights and so on.
if every single person did this then think of the amount of energy the world would save.
also, electricity plants release carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide etc in to the atmosphere. to solve that renewable energy sources (such as solar, wind, tidal etc) should be used, then again waste and harmfull gases would be reduced.
basically, if everyone did their own little bit every day and the goverment set up some safe electricity plants then day by day carbon comissions would be reduced!!
Harsha Dhokia
I'm glad to hear the government is voicing it's concern over climate change, but we need less words and more action.
I doubt many of the green taxes suggested will have much effect, as most people view things like cars as necessities and will continue to use them regardless.
I do however agree that aviation fuel should be taxed, partly to reduce unnecessary air travel, but I believe the money collected this way should be put straight back into the environment.
I also think there should be greater encouragement to use microgeneration. Perhaps a new law that requires all new buildings to have some form of microgeneration -such as solar roof tiles. I also believe more funding should be available for individuals and companies who want to instal such measures.
I do not think expansion of our existing airports is necessary or acceptable in the current situation.
We don't have long to make a difference, changes need to be effective and immediate if weare to prevent the devestation of climate chaos.
Colette Mottram-Hunt
Biofuels based on plant and tree products are incredibly ineffectual in reducing carbon emissions and take up vast areas of land that could be dedicated to the much more important tasks of growing food or developing permanent forests and woodland to soak up carbon. So why on earth is the government encouraging the increase in the production of these products. These technologies are counter productive and are contributing to the destruction of masses of very carbon rich tropical rainforests.
Surely there are more effective ways of reducing our carbon emissions. There are proven technologies out there that could dramatically reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide. Biofuels can only ever represent nothing more than a token gesture that in the long run will only do more harm than good.
Samuel Bolton
why is it climate change is seen as a big problem when in fact it has been happening since the birth of this planet.
why is it ignored that there was a mini ice age a few hundred years ago? and before that a very warm period that was significantly warmer than it is today.
why is CO2 seen as such a huge problem when man only contributes around .3% of the TOTAL 3% that makes up the atmosphere gasses? how can .3% of 3% make any difference like what is being spouted to the people by the idiots in power?
the world needs to open its eyes to the truth, and that is man made climate change is a political tool used to tax people relentlessly.
natural climate change will go on regardless of human activity.
Stew Toal
As the PM says NOW is the time to act. Already advances in scientific knowlege show that the 60% cut by 2050 will not be enough. But the scientific bad news is offset by the rapidly rising awareness especially in the USA where the Bush administartion is now completely out of step with most citizens and many state governments and corporations. Rapid advances in energy efficiency and other low carbon technology is the other good news, but new technologies need a mandatory legal framework to drive them to market.
So we need decisive action, and I was therefore very encouraged by Mr Milliband's comment that we should consider personal carbon rations.
Martin Normanton
Dear Mr Blair,
The ice is melting fast enough now to disrupt animal behaviour. We need to get back to 300 ppm asap:carbon to be cut almost overnight (90% by 2030 is generous).Please announce an international emergency & put us on a war footing.Sweden's aiming for a fossil fuel/nuclear free energy source by 2020:we need to pull together on this. The House of Lord's report of 05 warns that the general public haven't been sufficiently alerted.Belts in chaps!Dunkirk spirit & all that!
URGENCY needs to be conveyed.
Susan Chapman
I am tired and frustrated by the misguided beliefs that are preached by a lot of dreamy and unrealistic so called 'friends of the earth'.
How on earth can we expect to make headway in reducing our carbon emissions when we get behind a lot of ineffectual technologies such as wood and plant based biofuels while we shun proven and effective ones such as nuclear energy? I am appalled at the lack of realism that has been applied to this daunting challenge by FOE and by many other organisations that don't seem to understand its full extent or nature.
Plant based fuels are simply too inefficient and take up far too much valuable land that should be dedicated to the much more important tasks of growing food or forest. Forest will soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while growing our own food will prevent us needing to import so much of it from the tropics where it is often grown at the expense of very carbon rich rainforest. So where is the sense in using the limited land that is available to us to grow crops to generate biofuels? It does the exact opposite of what it says on the tin.
Nuclear energy no doubt has its risks and drawbacks, but it is quite obvious that in order to make the necessary scale of reduction needed in our carbon emissions it represents one of the few viable options open to us. The only other really big hitters are greatly heightened energy conservation and micro-generation using fossil fuels. But these are not going to be sufficient and they still involve much higher emissions of carbon than nuclear energy.
Can Friends of the Earth please start acting sensibly and back the choices that are needed to insure that the earth remains our friend.
Samuel Bolton
I don't accept Mr Blair's argument for not supporting annual reduction targets. The sad fact is that his administration cannot be trusted to deliver cuts. The reductions that have already occured are due to the Conservative Government's decision to ditch coal and go for gas (a less CO2 intensive energy source).
The Labour administration has fought tooth and nail to increase aviation, it has resisted every call to make new homes energy self sufficient (reforming building regulations), it has squandered billions on new roads - facilitating the increase in traffic, it has refused to ban out of town shopping centres - also increasing traffic, it has refused to ban energy squandering practices - like the thousands of shops which leave their doors open in winter and leave lights on all night, it has refused to deliver effective fiscal measures to deter the purchase of gas-guzzlers, it has refused to invest serious money in tidal technologies ... but you have told the world that nuclear power is part of the solution - so every nation on earth gets access to nuclear weapons technology and every nation gets access to the materials needed to construct a "dirty bomb" to kill us with.
No, Mr Blair, Labour cannot be trusted and that is why we can't trust you not to waste another 5 years. That's why we need annual reductions now!
Jon Fuller
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
