The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_1828 April 2008
Gentlemen, Thank you for this opportunity to speak our minds.
I would like to say that I strongly disagree with the notion that the responsibilty of tackling climate change lies with the individual. We live within a freemarket economic system which responds to the raw elements of supply and demand. If a small group of conscientious individuals make a serious effort to reduce thier energy consumption, then the effect is simply a greater availability of cheap energy for those who don't give a damn. A similar model can be applied on the international scale, if Great Britain uses less coal, there is simply more of it on the market for the rest of the world to use. The responsibility rests on the shoulders of politicians to devise a system which taxes the rich energy users, and puts the funds into alternative energy development and energy saving measures / winter fuel allowances for the poor and elderly.
The truth is that the only way to limit our emmisions is to stop extracting so much coal and oil from the earth, on an international scale.
However like many environmentalists I believe that the power of governments to make the important and urgent decisions is compromised by high level political links to the energy industry. Mr Blair I'm sure you know the true extent of this, and in your last few months as Prime Minister you should look seriously at changing our system of government in order to stop the energy companies manipulating government energy policy for their own benefit. Unless this last point is addressed I am fairly certain we will see nothing but token effort on this matter.
Nicholas New
We need annual targets. The longer we leave any action, the more expensive the resulting work we will need to do.
With melting glaciers and rising sea levels, change can not come at some vague point in the future, we could be in for some sort of run- away effect.
It takes some time to get ice to melt, but once that happens, the action on melting speeds up. The Earth's atmosphere does not react over night, there is an inertia, buffering effect before actions occur.
CFC's may have been banned, but it will take a long time for the ozone layer to recover.
Action on climate Change is like trying to stop a run-away vehicle- easy when the vehicle is barely moving, alot more difficult (and expensive) when the vehicle of climate change has gathered momentum. We are paying catch up with 150 years of carbon emissions.
We also need annual targets because we can not rely on the actions of other countries- we need annual targets just to keep up with rising emissions elsewhere.
Nuclear power is irrelevent for the future in the UK for two fundamental reasons.Firstly the UK has no unrestricted access to uranium- to committ the UK to nuclear would be to foolish, you only have to look to the begining of the year with the gas supply issue between Russia and the Ukraine.
The second fundamental reason why nuclear power has no future in the UK is because nuclear power has no future itself- the Nuclear industry itself records that there is enough uranium as a resource for around 300 years, but as an extracable reserve, this is only around 100 years (the report was from around 1991, so we are now down to 85 years) at the 1991 level of use.
After 100 years, what then? Back to the same situation that we are in now, but with nuclear power stations to decomission and waste to store.
Don't go there, besides we have the best offshore wind resource in Europe- but energy efficiency and conservation need improving.
With the rise in buy-to-let housing, I am concerned that landlords will charge high rents, with little improvement in housing. The occupants, if on low income, would probably then be in the situation of fuel poverty.
Action is needed to force landlords to make their properties energy efficient- or Local Councils would do the work, and charge the landlord.
Stephen Rainbird
I know this is a vital issue at home but I feel more money should be invested in developing countries such as India. Whatever cuts we make will soon be completely overshadowed by their increase.
Back to here, why not turn off ALL street lights after midnight?
Fine companies who leave all the lights on in the office blocks?
Robert Twitchen
In the debate about the reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere much of the discussion centres on the control of emissions. This is to be achieved by introducing new technologies, by reducing energy use etc. The timescale for these changes is usually reckoned in decades and when the rapidly expanding economies of China and India are considered then the problem is daunting. Many climate scientists are urging a much faster reduction of atmospheric greenhouse gases if climate change due to this cause is to be reduced. One method of greenhouse gas reduction rarely gets mentioned and that is the direct extraction of the gas from the air.
We need a technology that uses air as input, removes the carbon dioxide (or other gas) and stores this extracted gas (I am no chemical engineer and would request comment from others). The energy for the process could come from 'green' power sources. A network of such extraction sites could be worldwide. The level of the gas in the atmosphere would need to be monitored (as is already the case) and extraction stopped as the gas concentration falls to its more normal value.
This would buy time as the various emission reduction strategies were put to use. Direct extraction could be reckoned as an emission reduction for political purposes. I suspect that CO2 levels in the air are going to carry on increasing while we wait for nuclear reactors to be built and the Chinese to stop burning coal in power stations. To my mind the direct extraction is something which should be considered as part of the more rapid response to the problem.
Malcolm Hough
One of the areas where this country has sadly failed to take action is on tackling the thermal efficiency of the existing housing stock. While building regulations enforce reasonable standards on new build houses, these amount to less than 1% of the total housing stock.
Significantly greater impact on energy use would be made by enforcing higher standards on existing housing rather than focusing solely on new-build. That this can be done is clear from the actions taken by the German government to upgrade their housing stock. What is needed is an incentive, such as a reduction in council tax for properties which meet appropriate thermal stndards, to drive owners to ensure that all possible measures are being taken to reduce energy use. In designing any such measure it is important to recognise that it is the rental estate which is particularly poorly insulated, hence measures must encourage action in this part of the market.
Mark Crutchley
I will do my bit to save the planet when America stops pumping out tons of harmful gases,also our own goverment can do more,(drive round canary wharf at night you dont need your lights on its so bright)also make every council come upto the same standards as some of the good ones and goverment should fund councils in recycling not the rate payer.Mr Blair's goverment wants to stop the train and the bus companies putting up fares try putting them down and make it so people will use them more.Have the balls to do things not just say them
Finally if this goverment stoped wasting money on useless projects like giving £4,000,000 to be a good parent,that money would go some way to make this country a bit more greener.
Peter Crabbe
When are we going to move away from a political system which is focused on the short-term goal of winning votes in the next election rather than tackling the important social and environmental issues which require long term commitment and leadership?
Emma Cooper
Mr Blair, as long as your attitude to aviation remains one of 'predict & provide' - rather than 'polluter pays' - it is difficult to take your fine words on climate change very seriously.
The anomalous tax breaks enjoyed by the aviation industry have allowed the price of air travel to fall sharply in recent years - but the consequent increases in passenger numbers (and pollution) have been almost entirely due to the rich flying much more often. Your government's attempts to justify artificially cheap air fares on the basis of 'social inclusion' simply do not stand up to scrutiny - especially as massive increases in bus fares seem to cause you no concern whatsoever.
If you're serious about tackling climate change, then applying the 'polluter pays' principle to the aviation industry is vital - even if it might be unpopular in some quarters. Do you really want to be remembered as 'The man who cared so much about climate change, he very nearly did something about it'?
Mike Wright
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
