The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_1628 April 2008
Recently there has been much media attention on the issue of taxing carbon sources of energy - with some rather dire warnings about how our standard of living will be affected. Surely, as well of the stick of taxation to shift people away from carbon sources of energy there is a need to demonstrate incetives to invest in and take up non-carbon sources of energy.
With a mixture of wind,solar and fuel cell sources of energy it should be possible , in the long term, to have as good as, if not better, standard of living - and take away our dependence on carbon energy from some very unstable overseas oil rent states (it might also solve their problems as the influx of oil wealth has been a major factor in the spread of a relatively new, wealthy, terrorist class).
Nuclear power may be a stop gap but surely, in the longer term, the most efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy is solar and fuel cell technology.
Instead of drumming up the negatives of increased taxation of carbon fuels why not promote the positive and enterprising carrot of mass market alternative energy sources.every home should be able to get its solar panels from b and q and getting a fuel cell energy centre for your home ought to be more trouble that getting that old boiler replaced.
Robert Knight
By the time 2010 comes, the current government might no longer be in power. So what incentive does Labour currently have to reach that cut and fulfil the promise, if not through annual targets? Or does the government think that the public likes the sound of theoretic environmental targets, but would resist them in practice? If so, education and raising awareness is the only option. Targets could be flexible enough to respond to variations, so that a greater cut one year could compensate for a missed target the year before. Nobody objects to security checks at airports, since we all understand the dangers they are meant to prevent. Surely climate change is even more urgent? Distant targets sound attractive, but if the government were really taking climate change seriously, surely they would welcome annual targets and would not be allowing the construction of a further runway at Heathrow. I will vote for whichever party seems the most sincerely committed to action, not just good intentions.
Nicola Doherty
Clearly we need annual targets: The last few years have shown where we are going without them (ie lots of promises for the future, but rising emissions meantime). However, we don't just need any targets - we need targets which are big enough to help and avoid the worst of climate chaos. This government is, through the UNFCCC Climate Change Agreement, committed to work to stabilise atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases in order to avoid dangerous climate change. Through the EU we are committed to work towards a maximum warming of 2 degrees C. The most recent science shows that this means levels lower than 450 ppm CO2 equivalent. The 60% cuts by 2050 which the government have adopted come from an old RCEP report which endorses the global framework of Contraction and Convergence, but, based on science from the year 2000, suggested a target of 550 ppm CO2 - one which most scientists fear will lead to massive sea-level rises and species extinctions. 550 ppm gives a 90% risk of more than 2 degrees C warming. Using the 450 ppm figure, we would look at 90% cuts by 2030 - something which is quite possible, though it will require a concerted effort. Shouldn't the government support a global equitable framework, one which many developing nations have been demanding for years, and set its targets accordingly?
Almuth Ernsting
Mr Blair,
I am 'doing my bit' (added insulation, less driving etc.) but what I NEED is for me and all of us to be given the feeling that individual action is not pointless. I want to feel there is a governmental sense of urgency and I think we all need a 'psychological kick' (and boost) of seeing the government taking action immediately. Cutting permitted car-speeds to 60mph would give everyone a sense that matters were urgent. Fines for speeding could be earmarked for green projects, to make aggressive enforcement of the change more acceptable. Preparation for this should start with a speech to the nation, preferably by leaders of all parties.But this green move will be resented by me (and others) if its benefits are made comically ineffective by the growth in number of cheap airflights.
I find it profoundly depressing to see more and more cheap flights on offer which dwarf my own green efforts.
But this issue, I suspect, will need the European Parliament to act. I am told the majority of Westminster MPs have second homes abroad and are unlikely to vote to end cheap flights. Nor do I see me denying myself cheap flights as an empty gesture when millions of others will use them.
Please, Mr Blair, do something meaningful quickly. Action, please, not mere words or future plans.
David Stock
All experience shows that most people will go on doing what they are currently doing based on considerations of price and convenience. Thus, they will buy bigger cars, leave lights on unnecessarily, travel when they do not need to, consume until the credit runs out, and so on. They will continue to behave in this eventually self-destroying manner until they are either prevented from doing so by laws that are enforced; or they are given a cheaper alternative. This will remain true even though at one level of consciousness they know that their actions are foolish, selfish and self- defeating.
The same is true of firms under a capitalist/free market system. Cost and other competitive factors are seen as irresistible forces driving them in that direction.
It follows that education on climate change, imprecations to behave better and so on are ultimately futile as forces for dealing with environmental degredation, although they may help create a sympathetic climate in which radical changes may successfully be imposed.
It is time governments recognized these elemental facts. Instead of merely tinkering with the problems facing the planet and endeavouring to pass them off as solutions, governments should draw analogies with what happened in wartime in the C20th. Then, forces threatening national destruction gave government the powers, with the approval of their peoples, to mobilise national resources on a vast scale to meet a known threat. We are essentially in the same situation now. Car and plane use must be restricted by fiat or swingeing alterations to relative prices through the tax system. Methods of production and even the kinds of products that can be produced should be put under close control according to the resources -particularly in relation to carbon emmissions - they use up in their production. Energy policy should eschew resort to chimerical technological fixes like the nuclear one, and concentrate instead on energy saving and the development of renewables.
In short, the seriousness of our national situation, the immanence of the possibility of catastrophic decline, means that people and organizations will have to be prepared for a large measure of coercion to protect them from the consequences of their continuing folly.
I am by no means optimistic any of this will be heard or understood. We are a country run by political pygmies prepared to divert us from our only road towards a sustainable existence by recourse to policies that are still a throwback to the days of Empire. Blood and treasure on a huge scale are expended on futile and obscene wars in far-off places where we can ultimately achieve nothing. To add to this, we shall soon have the monumental folly of a renewed and endlessly costly and futile committment to nuclear weapons. Imagine what could be acheived if these resources were diverted into cushioning the pain engendered by the policies needed to tackle climate change that I have outlined above.
Douglas Anthony
Big national and multi national supermarkets should be targeted to stop the unnesasary food miles. Money talks as they say and they should be fined or taxed per mile that food has to travel. When you drive throught the hight streets at night all the stores keep on lights all night not just the name of the shop but the whole window displays why how many people driving by want to see the goods it just costs money and wastes energy.
Large manufactures need to be pushed to make and design affordable green tecnology cars so that they are the norm not the gas guslers it is possible to create green cars so just get on with it we dont have to go back to bikes and horses.
What about the public transport system for example if this country invested in high speed rail conections accross this county that could rival short didstace air travel people would use the quickest option. Not much investmant has been put into this idea.
Tax the companies who produce high energy consumptive products not the individual who buys them this way they will spend more money to produce new tecnology that is much more environmentaly acceptable, because you will always have the rich who are prepared to pay what it takes to keep gas gustling cars on the road for the status and this widens the gap even more from rich to poor.
Lots of investment in off shore wind and other renewable energy NOT nucliar power. We need to provide a lasting legasy for future generations.
Elizabeth Earl
I think that the government should spend some of our taxes helping to reduce climate change e.g finding another fuel source and make it cheap to use like electric cars and making them cheap and so on. so then we would use less electric but before that invest money into renewable energy source like wind power something needs to be done i don't want my children to be under some snow in 20 years time
Paul Hughes
Instead of increasing taxes for to discourage people creating polution why doesn't the government use the following in conjuction with current taxing levels to vastly increase the countries carbon footprint.
Legislate for cleaner cars as they have done in California. This would ensure that emmissions are reduced, rather than taxing drivers and putting the money into nonclimate related government spend.
Reduce tax massively on biofuels to encourage car users and manfacturers to use and produce more environmentally friendly cars. This should be very easy for the production of vehicles as the changes are relatively minor to allow petrol vehicles to accept biofuels.
Encourage farmers to grow biofuels rather than paying farmers to leave fields fallow.
Reduce public transport costs to encourage people to use them rather than increasing the cost of public transport. The rail services are too expensive, too disjointed, too unreliable and too crowded to provide a realistic alternative to cars in a number of cases.
Making public transport and public utilities not for profit organisations and enforce efficiency on them. The water boards are an exceptionally good example of an inefficient utility as they never meet their leakage levels which has a huge environmental impact but they don't put more money into fixing the problems as they are interested in profits.
Martin Eves
The UK Government has done well to push this issue high up the agenda internationally as well as nationally. It seems though that there's still a feeling that this problem ranks only equal to other big international problems. It's true that war and poverty, for example, are big issues and need our attention, but no other issue has the potential to threaten the very future of the planet or to thrust society and civilisation in to an upheaval of unimaginable proportions, as as serious (over 2C) climate change does. We don't just need strong leadership, we need genuinely brave and radical action. We don't just need a compromise, we need implementation of the strongest solution possible. An overwhelming number of scientists, campaigners and MPs are convinced of an annual cuts mechanism because it is the solution that's needed. I urge Mr Blair to grasp this opportunity to implement the real, lasting and effective solution of annual cuts. Let's be the people that took the action necessary before it was too late and not be looked back on as the people that didn't do enough and let down future generations.
Neil Kingsnorth
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
