The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_1728 April 2008
Annual targets are crucial. As Tony Juniper points out we have them for our current economic growth measures and various policies of government are carefully thought up and implimented in order to see them achieved. Thus, it would seem to to any observing member of the public, completely plausible and possible for the government support annual reduction targets in the Climate Change Bill.
Tony Blair makes a good point about the need to show leadership and be persuasive at a global level. The potential rise of emmissions from countries like China concerns me greatly. However again Tony Juniper makes a very good observation here - we will be far more persuasive when recommending action to other countries if it seen as a "do as we do" and not a "do as we say".
I thank the Prime Minister for engaging but would urge him to consider these points most strongly. And also this - I would never be able to vote for an MP who was a member of a party that did not actively support annual targets, and I suspect I am part of a steadiliy growing number of people in this.
Stephen Shaw
There is a way of producing a sizeable cut in energy use which will be both on-going and popular, certainly amongst the leisure industry. Why not have double summer-time? It made sense during the war and that extra hour of daylight will mean a huge reduction in lighting use as well as providing more time for leisure activities. Its will really highlight the seriousness of climate change to the public, demonstrate a government determination to address the problem and send a message to the rest of the world.
Trevor Humphreys
Tony Blair you say the right things:
1) Your leaked letter to EU leaders you said we have a 10 to 15 year gap to do something.
2) You say it is the most critical problem the world is living with.
3) You commissioned the Stern report which highlighted the need to do something now.But then your aviation white papar from 3 years ago encourages expansion of our airports. They are planning to treble flights by 2030.
You haven't got a grip on cars properly. The chancellors budget put tax up on poluting cars but by such a tiny amount it means nothing. At the time it was quoted as 'missing out on a capachino every month'. Tax second cars (registered at a household) much more heavily to encourage single car ownership.
You are keen on Nuclear power which even if we started now would take 10 to 15 years to get online and would cost a lot of money. You say private companies will foot the complete bill including decommissioning. But i can't see this happening. I am fearful someone will make a lot of money out of nuclear and then go into liquidation when it is time to clean up the mess leaving the tax payer to foot the bill. Nuclear fuel still has to be sourced from somewhere which causes polution.
Ban incandescent light bulbs. Simple and will make a real difference.
My Blair, I don't want to discourage you. You are our prime minister and in a position to make things happen. I just want to see some real action NOW!!
Giles Gooding
More needs to be done to encourange, or force motor manufacturers to make vehicles that are capable of running on Bio fuels. For example, currently most will only warrant 5% Bio diesel, although it is carbon neutral. More should also be done to encourage the sale of Bio fuels and the take by motorists that can use these fuels!
Phil Tingay
I was heartened the Climate Change Bill made it into the Queen's Speech, but disappointed that it immediately seems to have been watered down from the initial proposals, in particular the requirement to set and aim for an annual reduction is to be replaced by a five year target. I have heard the argument put forward that a year is too short because the weather can vary so much from year to year. This may be true, but I can see the same excuse being made ready if the weather pattern changes over 5 years. This is too important an issue to be left for 5 years. I will be lobbying my MP to push for the original yearly targets to be enacted.
It's not really good enough for politians like Jacqui Smith to say lots of people are already making the small changes in their own lives to reduce their carbon footprint. Government action and international pressure will support those efforts. The reality is that everyone needs to make changes, not just the few. And government doesn't just need to support their efforts, it needs to encourage or, if necessary, force the rest of the population to do the same.
Climate change is everyone's problem, not everyone ELSE'S. Your job as politicians is to get that message across, and urgently. I'd like to know how the Labour Party is going to meet this challenge.
Robert Palgrave
We cannot expect people, communities, corporations or even governments to change behaviour to more environmentally sensitive ways if the representation we get of this change is so negative. For example if you watch news programmes it is common to hear about the 'sacrifices' needed to combat the threat of climate change.
Why are the positives not given the light of day - many of the recommended behaviour changes point towards improved quality of life, for example, stronger community links, less exploitative farming and food production methods, more physical activity which is beneficial to health etc. I could go on!
When will the media pick up on these aspects?
Liz Davies
Thank you for inviting this debate. I welcome the Climate Change Bill in the Queen's Speech and fully support FOE's position about the need for year-on-year targets. Every bit of news tells us of the urgency to ensure carbon cuts. I think the Government should be bold and resolute about implementing legislation or fiscal measures about:Transport: there must be tough action to reduce the number of fuel-hungry cars and vehicles and to curb air travel. The Government could show its clear commitment to tackling the problem of climate change by scrapping its proposals for airport expansion. Like road building, such a policy encourages growth and caters for the demand. We have to have strong leadership in the politically difficult area of transport. It is not the politician's role to pander to our demands, in the same way as parents recognise, looking at wider interests, that it is not always the right thing to give their children what they want. I believe that many people do not accept the urgency of the problem while Governments continue to allow cheap travel. People have said to me that, surely if it was so bad, Governments would do something about it? How much more evidence do we need about the threats of climate change before this is the case!
Food: Cheap transport also leads to the current unsustainable situation whereby our food travels such vast distances. The way food is produced also has a great impact on climate change. The production of fertiliser is an energy intensive process that uses fossil fuels as a raw material resulting in the emission of large quantities of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Chemical fertilisers are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in agriculture and the single largest source of nitrous oxide emissions for all sectors in the world. Soil is a major store of carbon, containing about twice as much carbon as the atmosphere but scientists have discovered that soil is losing its carbon content on a large scale. The Government could further increase its support for organic farming - a study by the UK Government found that organic farming requires about half the amount of energy as conventional farming to produce the same amount of food. This is mainly because it uses organic matter and soil biology for crop nutrition, instead of energy-intensive fertilisers. Studies also show, however, that organic farming maintains and often increases carbon levels substantially.
Building: All new build should have to incorporate the best possible energy efficiency measures and renewables, water recycling (cleaning water to drinking water standard is energy intensive), and solar energy (where orientation is appropriate) the costs would quickly drop because of large-scale production. In this way, all developers and builders, house buyers and customers (wanting extensions etc) would be bound by the market framework. The Government should ensure that options and grant availability for energy efficient measures are well publicised, and make clear the economic case for e.g. insulation both for cold and hot weather. Energy pricing measures should make it financially more attractive to conserve energy and cheaper also because it removes the cost energy generation. Low energy light bulbs, for example could be subsidised and local authorities and businesses required to switch to low energy lighting as well as reduce the level of lighting (street lighting, along roads, shops and offices). Finally, we need to measure wealth differently; currently our economy depends on unsustainable resource consumption and by using too many fossil fuels in the production process We are deemed a wealthier nation by consuming vast amounts of goods not designed to last. Things aren't made to last, and repair, if possible at all, is more expensive with raw materials and energy being cheaper than labour costs. The transition to a conserver society won't be easy with a retail industry relying on us to buy new things but we clearly cannot continue to consume our natural resources at current rates or to produce the current mountainous levels of waste.
Jo Ripley
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
