The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_2028 April 2008
We need to reduce not just the rate at which we emit carbon dioxide but also and most importantly the total amount of carbon dioxide that will be in the atmospere by the mid century. It's the total amount up there, not the rate at which we put it there, that will cause and is causing dangerous global warming. Even if a future Government managed to make 90% cuts in emissions over night that would make no difference if previous Governments, such as this one, had continued to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so that they built up so much that the climate warmed dangerously. That's why we must make the cuts now, every year in manageable chunks, until we've reduced our polluting emissions enough to be safe.
If your doctor told you to lose 2 stone or you'd be dead in 10 years would you wait until 9 years and 350 days had passed and then go on a crash diet-which would probably kill you if you'd lived that long, or plan to lose the weight gradually, and enjoy being healthy?
Julian Kirby
Dear Mr Blair.
Please stop the Nuclear Power Programme NOW. Nuclear Power is the dirtiest polluter known to humankind. Nuclear is anti-life, destrying the underlying blueprint of cellular generative processes. Nuclar waste is never safe, leaving a deadly heritage for future generations. It's simply MAD to go there. PLEASE STOP IT NOW.
Matt Davies
In his statement the Prime Minister rightly points out that the greatest amount of carbon emissions are coming from the 'economic powerhouses' of China, USA et al. Clearly linking greenhouse gas emissions with economic growth. Is it not better to tackle the cause of climate change - i.e. a belief that economic growth brings 'happiness'- rather than the symptom; the greenhouse gases. The natural outcome would be that as lives are adjusted towards less energy intensive more person centred ways of being the emissions would drop naturally and easily without causing anger and resentment.
Secondly a point on a specific government policy - the continued selling of licences to explore for oil and gas in offshore waters (surely not conducive to tackling climate change), and doing so without the exclusion of protected habitats - such as Cardigan Bay. Disgraceful, two-faced behaviour.
Leila Kiersch
Please, let us consider the full implciations of a new generation of nuclear plants before we rush ahead.
1) The cost of dismantling plants after 50 years or so is a sheer waste of money .
2) The sort of waste that is left behind will pose danger for future generations for thousands of years to come.
3) Nuclear technology can be misused by terrorists and governemnts alike to cause harm to life.
4) The alternatives such as Concerntrated Solar Power have not had a fair hearing, and potentially provide the option for clean safe and effective use of resources.
Augusta Lewis
So many things, such a little space..
I would like to see a lot more emphasis on Bio Fuels, especially where it is recycled, but emphasis needs to be put on growing fuels, sustainable fuels, and cleaner fuels that are carbon neutral.
It appears that the oil companies have a strangle hold on the world and the Worlds governments? this needs to shift back to the people, back to the farmers.. and then there may be change.
Lets see a 50/50 Bio Fuel mix and even a 100% Biofuel mix available at our pumps before 2010 (preferably now, I run on Biodiesel 100% when I can get it).
Lets see pressure on the car manufacturers to make 100% Biofuel ready cars NOW, not as an option now, but as a reality!
Lets see incentives for Electricity supplied to homes from renewable sources? How can this take off, if it is still more expensive than non-renewable sources....
And the roads...same old story, more traffic, more pollution, more standstill, more expansion, more traffic, more more more!
The only way to make people think about leaving their car at home, is if Public Transport is: Cheaper, More reliable, Cleaner, On Time, and More efficient...
When it costs more for someone to take the train, than to take their own car, nobody will want to stand in a cramped cabin for a longer time period and pay extra for the privilege? Surely if more people use Public Transport, overall the costs will reduce, right? Make this happen and it will make a big impact across the board for everything...
Surely that is blindingly obvious, right?More incentives for Home Working, even if it is 1 day per week, it should take a car off the road!
I read that Sweden have said NO to oil already, lets be next! Cleaner and greener!
We may only be a small country, but we can make a big influence, and we can catch up with our European counterparts who are already well ahead of us on all of the above!
Steve Tingay
There definitely needs to be a lot more done than just individual action. As much as I appreciate the ideals of a free market and consumer pressure but this still means consumers responding to the menu on offer - and the current menu does not serve well for the environment!
I recently opted to make a day trip by train, even though I have a car, in order to reduce my carbon impact. It was a simple journey of approx 60 miles from Cheltenham to Worle via Bristol on a Saturday, coming back the same day. Unfortunately the 19:51 return service was cancelled (I found out after waiting for 30 mins on a dark village platform) and no replacement service was made - the National Rail Enquiries man told me there was nothing he could do to help me get home - I would have to wait and catch a train the next morning! I hate to think what I would have done if I didn't have family nearby to help me out!
So in the end I arrived back home in Cheltenham after midday on the Sunday - what would have taken me less than an hour in the car took a further 16 hours on public transport (and I missed a radio interview I was due to give on the Sunday morning in the process).
I most certainly had the attitude and motivation to make a positive change to my usual more consuming habits but the resouces were not there to back them up - it is not just individual change that is needed, there needs to be the structure in place to enable people to live more 'greenly'. There has to be government ACTION across a range of areas including public transport systems (not just more investment, but an intelligent look at how it all works and who has access).
I feel very strongly about it - I am sure others must too. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.
Liz Davies
I am no politician so I shall keep this simple.
1) Instead of Bus Lanes on Motorways - introduce car share lanes, it works brilliantly in Australia, you can only use the lane if you have more than 2 or 3 people in the car. Therefore if you car share you have an option of using a much faster lane. Those people sitting in the traffic on there own in the car watching you flash by can do something about it even if they do not have a bus leaving from their village / town.
In major cities a lot has been done to create reasonable alternatives to the car. This is not the case in rural areas, where buses and trains are so infrequent, unreliable or far off, that they are not viable, this means that many people still end up commuting by car in to major cities as well as around rural areas. Where is all the petrol tax going?
The Enhanced capital allowance scheme does not work as well as it could. I work in the mechanical service industry, where our customers clients are major energy users for heating and air conditioning in the major cities offices stadiums hospitals etc. There are so many energy saving technologies available, which can reduce energy wastage by between 50 and 80%, these are not being taken on due to there higher capital cost. The end user is not the decision maker at procurements stage it is the consultants and installers pushing for higher profits from the contract. The energy saving devices are the first casualties of an over budget project (and how often is that the case). Mae it legislation that only varible speed technologies can be used (as in Germany). Or Make the enhanced capital allowance scheme more user friendly and easier to administrate and the climate will reap the benefits.
Why charge small businesses to recycle there goods, why make it easier to chuck them in the wheely bin. Why not make recycling free and charge more for the non recyclable waste. This must have more impact than doing the same thing to residential properties, or is it the perception of waste management that is trying to be communicated instead of the real issue being dealt with.
Ben Leigh
Over 50% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are from non OECD countries whose economies are growing rapidly. Will these nations also need to use nuclear power in order to mitigate climate change?
Steve Marsden
Something has to be done now and this government has to take the lead. The general public (me) know so little about how we can help this issue so the government should inform, then demonstrate their commitment by acting themselves.
Chris Evans-Pollard
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
