The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_1428 April 2008
I have not had chance to read all of the comments on this particular HYS, but have taken part in a number, similar in nature, both before and after the publication of the Stern Report, and have found that it is certainly an immotive subject, but have to say, there has been little encouragement in what I have read to date.
Unfortunately, I think the Government's forthcoming Climate Change Bill will do little to remedy this. I believe it will be too consumer focused, too much emphasis and responsibility (not to mention tax burden) laid at the feet of Joe Public. Of course, the average person in the street does, without doubt, have a contribution to make, but I think that so much more could be achieved if specific industries were targeted too. Why, for example, aren't developers required to build all new homes with triple-glazing, a turbine and solar panels on the roof, grey water recycling systems...? Why doesn't Government impose strict guidelines on the motor industry - prohibiting sales or imports of cars with emissions ratings of greater than, say 160g/km CO2, registered after 1/3/2008? Surely something of this nature would force the industry into investing heavily into cleaner technologies?? Why are we still able to buy normal light bulbs, or at least why are energy-saving ones anything upto ten times more expensive? Why can I not use a bus or train, after 6am, that will get me to work, 17 miles away, before 9am, and then home again before 7pm?
This draws me to what I believe is the single biggest affecting factor, and something Government could, I believe, help with. That is, the culture of NOW - the way we live, but particularly the way we work. I don't know what the percentages are, but I suspect that a large number of people in the UK work in offices, which we HAVE to arrive at by 9am (for the sake of argument) and leave again at 5pm. This generally involoves travelling, and unless you live and work in a large city, you probably have to drive. Over the past few months, I've tried to do a rough calculation of how much of my job I could do from home, and it equates to something around 60%. So, as I have a 5 day week, that would mean travelling only 2 days, and not all 5 - obviously I'd be using energy at home, so I'd still be polluting, but hopefully my contribution to the problem would be greatly reduced (particularly if I could get subsidised wind and solar power!). Now, imagine if a large number of other office workers did the same... Unfortunately my boss prefers me to work from the office, and it's here that I think Government can help. Give companies greater incentives to set their employees up at home, and provide a working model the benefits, increased productivity, lower overheads etc.
I hope that if Mr Blair manages to read all the posts here, and with particular reference to the points I've made, that he doesn't dimiss these arguments on the grounds of economy, or choice. I hope that he sees, and can persuade other world leaders to see, that however much he/they want their respective countries to grow and develop, it has to be done in a way that has the smallest possible impact on the the environment, otherwise, eventually, all the wealth, growth and development will be for nothing! I also hope that he can understand that the vast majority of us, would rather lose the right to CHOOSE to buy the heaviest polluting consumer goods, than have no choice whatsoever in paying extra 'green' taxes.
Andrew Eskriett
There is no substantiated evidence that climate change (over and above the normal localised and short-term variations we call "weather") is occuring at all. Even in the event that climate change could be shown to be occuring, it is an extreme fallacy to belive that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the likely cause. The primary forcing variable for the earth's climate is the output of the sun, something which has been shown to vary considerably over time. Any so-called "greenhouse effect" is a minor modulating factor on top of this and, at any rate, is hugely more dependent upon atmospheric water-vapour levels than CO2. The only "data" which suggest CO2 as a substantial factor are actually the outputs from assumption-based computer models, so tied up in positive feedback loops that they are likely to be operating on nothing more than quantisation noise.
It is therefore deeply disturbing that the government of the country is looking to pass laws to restrict CO2 emissions. Such laws will cripple industry and drive the poor further into poverty. The only winners will be the various government consultants and "green" energy companies with their snouts in the trough. Any excuse for yet another tax on the honest, hard-working population.
To add insult to injury, even if the government was successful in reducing British CO2 emissions (or even cutting them to zero), this would have practically no impact upon worldwide emissions and will almost immediately be negated by an increase in emissions from the likes of China as yet more industry is displaced to the far east.
The world has many problems; disease, poverty, war, localised destruction of habitats and so on. If governments pursued solutions to any of these with even a tenth of the vigour they are pursuing non-solutions to the non-problem of CO2 emissions then the world really could be a better place. Sadly, however, it appears that the emperor really does have no clothes.
Matt Smith
It is excellent that the proposed Climate Change Bill has brought this imperative issue into the legislative programme.
The details of the Bill given so far however suggest that, while it is a starting point, it fails to address the problem with sufficient urgency.
Annual targets need to be set. It's accepted that in some years targets would be overshot but fall short in others. The value of setting annual targets is that they will require the discipline of frequent monitoring. If intervals between reviews are longer the risk is that trends will be identified when they are too late or very difficult to reverse.
There also need to be frameworks of accountability. Either, or both, ministers and officials should be held responsible for failures to meet targets. Doing so on an annual basis would be impractical and unfair; longer term performance should however be recognised.
John Kenward
This is how I see it.
We have, each one of us grown accustomed to enjoying lifestyles that depend, behind the scenes, hidden from us, invisible, vast doses of fossil fuel.
And we have grown accustomed to a prevailing culture that sees no harm in burning oil, and no harm in its (invisible) products of combustion CO2.
This year - at long last - those who have long warned that half empty oil tanks on the one hand (peak oil) and a sky full up with CO2 (climate chaos) on the other - are very bad news for our children... are being listened to. But we have left it so late to wake up and listen, that it is much harder to take in the full enormity of where we stand in history. We are pulling the trigger on our children. Our political leaders all deserve praise for their part in waking us up, and our full support in continuing to do so with much greater urgency.
Many of us, especially those currently in leadership positions, struggle to believe, to imagine, to countenance, in our heart of hearts that we could really be happy and fulfilled without oil. Our Grade II listed home, our plans to travel the world and visit loved ones, our business explansion plans, the fast car we aspire to, most of our aspirations are illusions, and it is time we put away childish things and start to face the monster we have denied so long, LIVING HAPPILY EVER AFTER CARBON.
We are addicted to oil. Like all addictions, we deny they really exist, or downplay their hold over us. The truth of course is that our oil soaked dazed state renders us incapable of many things, nit least imagining a world without oil. We have swallowed the lie that more oil = more happy. Whoever could have made us believe such a myth - surely not clever marketing by Big Oil and all its friends and 'dependents' - media, govt...
Living and loving on a low carbon dose is possible, if we re-programme our heads with good 'code' and delete the brainwashed addicted bits of our true selves.
We can live more, be more, experience more, feel more... on low carbon dose.
Whatever scope remains for safely burning fossil fuel before the SKY IS FULL - the sky fill dump a la air fill - it would seem wise to try to find a fair and grown up way of allocating it, so that we can come off our addiction smoothly. To me the best proposal by far (i can see no other way) is Contraction and Convergence. It just is. The answer. No more debate. Equity and survival. Yes please.
The people we need to learn from are Africans, Indians, Chinese. They are on low dose now. We can listen to them. They are suffering now on our carbon account. We will suffer too soon. We need to make sure they 'carbon copy' our good habits, not our addictions. We need to 'lead on' down a new zerro carbon path... then they might follow our good example and not our mistakes.
Being STRICT and STERN on the UK in helping us overcome our addiction by stick and carrot - by rationing, by DTQs and by setting rapidly declining year on year targets agreed with the electorate (ask us - we might back you in setting a 3% yr on year target) in fact we did - and so did a vast majority of MPs who backed the EDM on this. This is the way. There is no alternative if we love the children. Not setting targets is total abrogation.
With common carbon purpose we can start to re-connect with ourselves, our self esteem, our national pride (UK saves the world!), our communities and our environment.
Never in the entire human history has so much carbon been owed by so few to so many- to all future generations - to the other 4/5billion not 'smoking fossil' as we do now.
Hope and optimism are part of the solution - but only after we have first recognised the immensity of the threat we stare in the eye.
I hope many will wish to sign the open Petition to the PM.
Alex Kent is the Petition Creator.
I think this is THE one to sign:
Dave Hampton
On Power Generation:
To speed up adoption of new low carbon technologies, of the 2.5% GDP spent on arms -
* Place 1% into Fusion research immediately
* Place 1% into Renewables equally immediately
* Use the remainder for our defenceRecover this GDP by 2030 through the equitable sale and licensing of the technology globaly
Meet an aggressive target of 90% redcued emissions by 2030 from adoption of the resulting technological successes
Robin Smith
The simple fast is that our current (Western) system of business and government is paralised, effectively grid locked; governments dare not take the necessary steps to combat climate change as this would result in econimic uncertainties (votes!) and businesses dare not reduce their relaince on fossil fuels less they become uncompetitive (sales!). In actual fact, only the consumer can change matters because they, after all, are the final purchasers of products and services. Consumers could create that demand for corporations (sales) and support for politicians (votes) if they knew how. At the risk of plugging a website, www.climatechangecharter.org seems to do precisely this!
Dawn Jennions
I agree that there is a responsibility with the individual to take action; with every family trying to cut the amount of electricity they use as much as possible.
I don't understand why so many appliances now have standby buttons. I agree that energy efficient appliances should pay lower VAT, as this would bring the cost of the consumer good down and encourage more people to buy them. This also should apply to pricing of solar panels, wind turbines, hybrid cars etc.
I think many individuals are willing to make changes but seeing government 'lead by example' and helping to make green living as attainable as possible, will encourage more and more people to think about their planet and its future.
I believe government needs to act now in order for future generations to have any chance at all.
Alex B
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
