The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_1528 April 2008
Reduction in consumption is vital. So what is wrong with green taxes? Put Standard Rate VAT on gas and electricity for a start. This is a seriously regressive change, so compensate the poor adequately and let all have the benefit of the reductions in fuel usage.
More tax on road fuel; the lack of action on food miles in this country is an absolute disgrace. With Scottish Spring Water on sale in Cornwall one just has to ask whether there is any common sense being applied to the problem.
People need to realise soon that the necessary reductions are going to be PAINFUL and losing cheap flights would be the least of their problems.
Rodney Archard
All the expert scientific evidence neither points one way, nor the other, consensus does not exist on anthropolgical causes of climate change. When the Kyoto agreement was drawn up, many believed man was a significant factor in causing Global warming through a 'green-house' effect. An incorrect description still adhered to by many, and which had accelerated 'warming' to beyond sustainable - just the stuff for a good blockbuster film, and equally justifying a whole raft of new taxes to ensure we 'save the World'.
Since Kyoto, science has moved on as it always does. If the science of the planets ecosystem was settled, we would have agreement on all issues. It is not, and we have not, nor is it ever likely to be. As long as science questions data, and new facts are found, no-one can be sure of just how much we affect our planet. We did not make it, and like King Canute, we will not change the tides of climate change. Ratifying the obsolete Kyoto agreement will cost trillions of pounds World Wide, lost trade, domestic hardships, and much more, in return for 0.06°C in 2050.
The world has regularly experienced variations in temperature far greater than that in recent past, and none of it man made. The Romans grew grapes in commercial vineyards across Britain. In the 1700's frost fairs were regular events on the frozen River Thames above London Bridge for at least a quarter of a century. The planet has been 4-5°C higher than today. Vikings farmed much of Greenland, hence the name. It is very easy to cherry pick statistics and feed them into Global Computer Models and come up with graphs that show worst case scenarios such as the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change did to suit Government policies. But they are flawed statistics, the models are unable to replicate real world science.
Currently, the sun is entering a weak period, that will reduce temperatures world-wide from around 2012, reaching it's peak around 2030, when a strengthening period returns. In the meantime, microbes in seawater have been found that absorb huge amounts of CO2, trees that grow near high output CO2 areas have been found to absorb as much as ten times that of similar trees farther away. Cosmic radiation from exploding stars affects lower cloud levels. The sciences involved in understanding this wonderful planet and how the biosphere handles what is thrown at it, are still in discovery.
We should be concerned, and rightly so, about how we treat the world around us. We need to make the best of what we have, and use sparingly and efficiently all our natural resources. Insulation, fuel conservation, and a host of other things are important, but make no mistake - signing up to paper agreements and goodwill programs are the stuff of wishful thinkers who believe having their wallets relieved of more valuable income to save the world - are about to be taken for a ride, and don't think China, India and Brazil will follow our puny token contribution. Such a short letter cannot but scratch the surface of a subject as large as the World itself. Seek information from real scientists, not sensationalist media reports, nor trust a politician who seeks to ask, but does not listen.
D. Reynolds
Point 1)
I accept energy use fluctuates depending on the weather but that's no reason for not having annual targets.Interim targets are too easily side-steped - it's so easy to blame previous administrations. Even if we aim for 3% a year and miss it by a small amount at least we'll be going in the right direction and hopefully it will mean more being done the next year.
At the end of the day this isn't about political point-scoring about who met what target. The planet won't be taking notice. It needs action to be taken now and for that to be sizeable and on-going. We can't wait to meet a 'target' in 10 years time.
Point 2)
There is currently so much energy wastage we could met annual targets anyway. I've been campaigning to get Kent County Council to rectify over 350 streetlamps which burn all day in the small area of Tunbridge Wells alone. There are many, many thousands across the UK. And why don't we ban 'normal' lightbulbs and force the use of low-energy bulbs? How many companies make use of energy audits even though they would probably save money by having one (especially if it's free as provided by the Carbon Trust organisation)? Why aren't gas-guzzlers taxed out of our cities as London plans to do? And these are just some obvious examples. It won't be hard to find more.
Trevor Humphreys
I think more use of WAVE POWER should be made round this island, in addition to wind turbines, solar panels etc.
Anne Miller
Aircraft fuel must be taxed to reduce the crazy growth in cheap flights, which just allows the better off to take more holidays - it's nothing to do with social inclusion. Not taxing it is an absurd anomaly.
Planning law needs changing to make it easier to set up windfarms - there should be a presumption in their favour, as well as in favour of microgeneration: wind turbines and solar panels on domestic property. At the moment planners are bound by the regulations to reject many such applications.
Rachel Ross
Avaition.We need to look at planes that are more environmentally friendly and should need to ease back a bit on flying, and utuilise trains more. The growth of flying has grown hugely along with damage to earth. We must reduce to growth to protect the environment.
Jonathan Whitney
Glogal warming is the greatest opportunity since the industrial revolution. It is time for politicians to wake up to what has been an obvious for 30 years.
People will unite, invent and innovate as in times usually only found during war.
Use this to open up to small scale experimentation, new ideas, new potentials. Masses of small scale as well as large government backed projects need little encouragement as the will and determination is here now.
Swaning around the poles then talking ignorantly just looks stupid. As does trying to hold onto control of all our power requirement.
Governments needs to step aside and allow natural human inventiveness find its way and allocate funds greater than spent on nuclear, to faciltate, not dictate.
We know that politicians are poorly informed,backward and incapable of making rational or intelligent decisions as the are always working to several different agendas.
Politicains mis manage schools,the nhs, war and so many other things. Please step aside in this instance at home. We can sort it without you. Politicians should be showing off our environmental success and encourageing or copying other countries.
Henry Nixon
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
