The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_21

28 April 2008

We need a law to make it mandatory for all new building to generate at least a proportion of their expected energy requirement (could start at 10%). The visible use of renewable energy systems such as solar panels and micro wind turbines will give huge confidence to businesses and consumers to invest in their own renewable energy systems (and the prices would fall with the economies of scale).

Tim Dunbabin

If Tony Blair believed a single thing he says about the need for action on climate change he would have stopped all road building and all airport expansion. When you are in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.

Blair's record so far has been to reverse the decline in emissions brought about as a purely fortuitous consequence of Thatcher's destruction of the coal industry assisted by the existence of cheap North Sea gas.

The continually asserted 'we are on course to nearly double our Kyoto commitment' is based not on actual statistics, but on an obscure DTI model. The CO2 figures are going up as a direct result of Blair's policies.

It was Blair who stepped off the Fuel Duty Escalator in perhaps the greatest piece of political cowardice of his term of office. He has done nothing since to rectify this and plenty more to make it much worse.

Hypocrisy doesn't come much worse than it does with Tony Blair on environmental matters. What a legacy!

Chris Gillham

Dear MrBlair

I am co-Director of a small renewable energy installation company working in the local domestic market. As well as installing solar thermal, solar PV and biomass boilers etc. we are also asked to provide general advice on energy saving. My experience is that despite the excellent advertising work done by the Energy Saving Trust and others many people do not fully understand the problems that we all face and those that do are very unsure about what they can do.

On many occasions when I visit properties I find the energy use is significantly higher than necessary, lights and appliances left on, poor insulation etc., and it is only when pointed out that something is done. It is normally very easy for me to recommend ways to make up to 20% savings on energy use. In very simple terms, from my almost daily experience at the 'sharp end', I think the only way to quickly achieve the necessary reduction in energy use is to place higher taxes on fossil fuels, ring fence the revenue and pay this out in grants and low cost loans for all energy saving measures. And although this may seem that I am possibly trying to increase business for my company I genuinely feel this is one sure way to provide significant results within a relatively short space of time. Richard Weavis.

Richard Weavis

To have such 'too little, too late' action on Climate Change imposes a grave threat to East Anglia, where much of our land is below sea level. At the same time as worsening climate and rising sea levels, we have cuts in the sea defence budget imposed, policies of allowing our villages to go to the sea without compensation, at the same time as offshore aggregate dredging causing further erosion continues unabated.

As one experiencing the 1953 Great Flood which took 300 lives, and as one who lost our coastal house more recently due to erosion, I have grave concern regarding the terminal myopia demonstrated by our government.

Pat

Over 250 years ago with our, the original, Industrial Revolution, we Englanders demonstrated to the world the unparalleled pleasures of fossil-fuelled carbon burning. Ever since, our ancestors have, on an averaged per-head basis, been putting just as much of the stuff up into the atmosphere as the Americans, Saudis, Gulf states, etc. We are indeed the ones in the World Dock for causing Global Warming. And instead of jetting-off to lecture the likes of the Indians as if they had caused it all, we in the UK should have been leading the world out of carbon-addictions with our own renewable energy.

Britain has a 40% of Europe's wind energy reserves (not to mention our tidal and wave energy resources). With green taxes to enforce proper energy efficiency disciplines too, we should have been self-sufficient in electricity with our wind energy alone by now. What other meaning was there in the European agreement to reduce carbon emissions signed for us by John Major, and your parallel one in opposition all those years ago?

Other countries have had genuine difficulty reducing their carbon-emissions, being poorly endowed with renewable resources. But we have no excuse for not carrying out our commitments. Why was it not the UK leading the world in wind power instead of poorly-endowed Denmark, Germany and Spain? The technology already existed, and it was only ever a matter of political will to carry out the UK governments own stated policy.

What went wrong? Instead, we've had lower green taxes making us even more carbon-addicted, and built gas interconnectors. And not to export some of our vast gas reserves, but to actually import even more of the stuff!

With or without enforcing carbon taxes, efficiency measures alone are capable of delivering the essential 3% averaged annual carbon emissions reductions for this (or any) governments term of office. So after all this time, what on earth is the excuse for not immediately implementing the UK governments own policy?

Some UK Prime Minister will indeed commit to the 3% averaged annual carbon reductions programme. If our current one finally gives up on the chance for it to be him, on the most important issue of our time, history and the next generation is certain to judge the Blair government to be the one that firmly entrenched our carbon addictions with the dirty energy peddlars (for that is undeniably what has been happening in the Blair era).

Jetting off to talk about the need for international commitments does not distract attention from our own appalling negligence in not harnessing our renewable energy resources. And if you imagine that energy efficiencies are being made, you could jet in here to our new Southend airport one evening to behold the lights of our seafront!

Roger Thompson

Comments to Both Tony's from the Campaign to Take Global warming Seriously. Member of Stop Climate Chaos.

1. Official scientific targets always lag behind the true seriousness of the problem - that is the nature of official scientific caution. So situation is more serious than is recognised in official pronouncements.

2. Neverthsless official advice is to cut CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050.
That does NOT mean that the UK can get away with a 60% cut. Our CO2 footprint is about 9.5 tonnes the world average is about 2.4 tonnes. The world average must be cut to about 0.9 tonnes (this is still probably optimistic - see 1 above). There is absolutely no reason why the UK should think that it can or should continue on a footprint of about 4 tonnes when the world average has to be 0.9. SORRY BUT WE SHOULD BE AIMING FOR 0.9 TONNES

3. There is no way we can achieve this by 2050 except by drastically changing our lifestyles to a low consumption economy. A low-carbon economy simply cannot deliver this kind of reduction.

4. In consequence a comparatively small (3%) year-on-year reduction target is not much help. There is probably 30% of fat in the economy and the industrial processes so that these targets can for 10 years be met quite easily. Thereafter it becomes increasingly difficult. WE NEED TO PLAN AND EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC NOW HOW WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR LIFESTYLES. AND WE NEED TO START DOING IT. Our suggestion is that we start now with fuel and flying rationing. This will start people realising it is serious.

Tony Hamilton

What proportion of our annual GDP will the government commit to fighting climate change ?

How much should go to proven technologies like wind, solar, hydro and biofuels which can be used immediately, today, and how much into the research of untested technologies

Tim Dunabin

Dear Prime Minister and Mr Juniper

Please will you both explain:

How will your approach to climate change, in Nairobi and for the forthcoming Climate Change Bill, address air pollution holistically in a manner that will deliver World Health Organisation recommended standards of air quality by January 2010 (and earlier for particulate matter) (recognising that this date has been in legislation since 1999)?

In Sir Nicholas Stern's excellent recent report, he commented on page 276 that "Climate change policies can help to reduce local air pollution, with important benefits for health". However, he also made clear, at the bottom of page 277, that "Sometimes climate change objectives will conflict with local air quality aims. This is a particular issue with transport." Sir Nicholas went on to say, at the top of page 278, that "Policies to meet air pollution and climate change goals are not always compatible. But if governments wish to meet both objectives together, then there can be considerable cost savings compared to pursuing both separately.

It is vital that street level air pollution is included in the forthcoming "Climate Change Bill" in order to ensure that: air pollution is addressed holistically (as opposed to sub-optimally at the expense of air quality); the cost savings highlighted by Sir Nicholas are achieved; and the health benefits of improved air quality are "locked in" to offset the costs of the necessary climate change action. As if to emphasise the last point, Stavros Dimas, the EU Environment Commissioner said in a speech to the British Chamber of Commerce in Brussels on 9 November 2006, that "The most obvious benefit that a clean environment brings to the economy is by preventing the negative impact of pollution. A degraded environment will affect the economy?s bottom line just as much as its affects the quality of people?s lives. The ill health due to air pollution costs the EU economy Euros 14 billion every year.

Please will you both commit to making every effort to include all air pollution, including street level air pollution (i.e. air quality), in the forthcoming Climate Change Bill and in your international efforts. It would take few changes to make this addition within the likely overall framework for addressing climate change given that the World Health Organisation has already set clear standards for air quality.

Simon Birkett
Chair, Transport and Environment Committee
The Knightsbridge Association

For us to achieve real progress in the quest for environmental sustainability then there has to be a total shift in the way we attack the problem. Governments, citizens, businesses and lobby groups/NGO's will all have to work together to demonstrate collabourative leadership. The drivers for change need to come from all of these sources.

Legislation, education, personal choice and market forces can and should all combine to help us make the right decisions and more importantly, make things happen.

Do we really want to destroy the one planet we rely on for survival?

I believe a sea change in attitude and awareness is sweeping over the developed world. This could lead to a rapid re-appraissal of how we all live our lives, making personal choices that reflect our desire for long term sustainability and survival rather than short term comfort.

Who we work for.
Where we shop.
What we buy and why we buy it.
How we travel.
How we use energy.

These personal choices will influence how businesses are managed and will encourage many of them to re-engineer their proposititions in line with public opinion, especially if they are encouraged by enlightened government and supported by the groups who in the past would attack them for bad practice.

Examples are:-
Toyota : pioneering hybrid cars.
Marks and Spencer : ethical sourcing (look behind the label)
BP : investing in new sources of energy

Governments, businesses, lobbiests and the public can and should pick up on this new agenda. Welcome to the concept of "Sustainable Enterprise"

David Williams

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

Send your comments >