The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_2624 April 2008
My message to Tony Blair at this time is to grasp this opportunity and show great leadership by starting on the pathway towards a really sustainable source of energy. The resources of this planet are, as we know, stretched and unsustainable. So we either kerb our demands to meet supply or employ the potential of an external source. This means using the potential provided by the Sun and Moon which manifests itself more commonly as Solar radiation, wind and tides. All other kinds of energy call upon the Earths resources
A debate on this took place in the 60s but unfortunatly we lost the plot; took the nuclear route and discovered North Sea oil and became complacent again. Please take this opportunity now because the "alternative energy" potential is so important to this country and emerging economies and could provide the basis of a new industrial revolution.
Robert Parker
LET'S GET BACK TO A BIT MORE MUSCLE POWER!! The use of extra-somatic energy to replace that of human effort (somatic energy) has been carried to the extreme. It damages not only Earth but also human health.
When humans rely on a remote control to give commands to numerous electrical appliances, rely on machines to do the washing-up; and even use to perfume the air and frighten off insects, I believe we've gone over the top.
Human basic laziness has not only helped to cause the huge rise in CO2 emissions but also been the cause of a sharp decline in human fitness.
Of course I don't advocate banning washing machines, vacuum cleaners and appliances that really do make a huge difference to the quality of life. However I do think that government regulating against the manufacture /import of many gadgets that cumulatively have a considerable adverse effect on the health of both planet and species would be very helpful.
Valerie Tomlinson
One thing you could do virtually overnight which would be a 50 mph national speed limit. It would reduce transport emissions of CO2 by 20%, reduce the need for new road building in the short term (through increasing road capacity as a result of braking distances), would effect all of us (a perfect analogy for climate change) but won't require taxation and would increase road safety for other road users.
The US and Scandinavia have lower speed limits partly in response to oil shortages - isn't the threat of climate change reason enough to do something similar? By slowing cars down it will probably encourage people onto public transport too as it might start to reduce the fascination we have with our cars and overcome the way we underestimate car journey times and over estimate public transport times.
It would also save us all money, even though it might irritate.
Will you consider it as a solution and if not why not?
Mike Robinson
The Government (and the population!) should do much more to tackle climate change. Excuses about other countries are just stalling tactics.1. Increase energy efficiency and incorporation of RE requirements on ALL new build.
2. Set an annual CO2 reduction target. A year is not too short a timescale.
3. Drop nuclear as it won't deliver in time anyway. Make planning permission easier for RE not for nuclear.
4. Educate- a low carbon lifestyle must be exciting and trendy for kids and teenagers, rather than encouraging the money race for disposable goods.
Ruth Stevenson
Nuclear power is reported to generate between 2.5% and 16% of the world's electricity supply. However, various reports show that the world's uranium supplies cannot accommodate a large increase in nuclear power. Figures indicate that there is only enough uranium to last existing nuclear power plants for around 72 years. A 6 fold increase would last just 12 years. Although other sources of uranium are available, they will require the release of more greenhouse gas emissions than would be saved by the operation of a nuclear power station.
The other issue with nuclear is security of supply. The largest supplies of uranium are from Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, South Africa, Namibia, Brazil, Russia, USA and Uzbekistan.
I believe that energy efficiency should be improved to reduce our need for energy generation. You only have to walk past offices and government departments to see computers left on all night, shops and houses using inefficient lighting and set top boxes that cannot be switched off.
I recently replaced all my 50w halogen light bulbs with energy efficient ones (reduced 300w to 54w). This was a major headache as shops like B&Q don't sell a full range of energy saving bulbs. I had to find a company located in Ipswich who could post them to me in Sheffield. It also doesn't help that the government places a tax on such bulbs making them more expensive.
I would also like the government to invest in green methods of generating electricity such as wave and tidal power. These technologies could, using conservative estimates, provide about 20%-25% of the country's electricity requirements. Wind technology is improving all the time. New developments will allow for turbines to be placed out at sea with each one generating up to 25Mw.
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) could provide all the world's electricity requirements from a small area of desert. In America, a one-hundred square mile area could satisfy the entire country's electricity requirements. It is possible to obtain electricity from deserts in North Africa without large losses in the transmission.
Some detailed projections prepared for the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) show how, even allowing for increases in demand, a combination of CSP with other technologies can enable Europe to cut CO2 emissions from electricity generation by 70% by the year 2050, and phase out nuclear power at the same time
Adopting a decentralised approach to energy generation will also allow us to use existing fossil fuels, like gas, more efficiently as both the electricity and waste heat can be used. Conventional power stations currently waste the hot water.
Transport
I own a car and use it for essential journeys, but unfortunately, I also use it for some journeys where public transport could be used. I don't like doing this but the deregulation of public transport has resulted in a system where you cannot use competing buses/trams unless you want to pay twice. The prices are also very off putting. It would cost me £3.50 to catch a bus on a 6 mile round trip to work.I would like to cycle to work but there are no facilities to get changed. The government should insist that all companies over a certain size should offer cycling facilities.
I would also like to see road tax replaced with a pay as you drive scheme. I drive less than 1200 miles a year yet pay the same as someone doing 12,000+ miles.
The expansion of car clubs would offer many people the option of using a car when ones is needed but public transport, walking and cycling could be used for other journeys.
I would like to see cars made more efficient and cleaner. The car industry doesn't seem to be doing enough in this area. They seem obsessed with building gas guzzling vehicles.
Shaun Rumbelow
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
I recognise and applaud the initiatives taken by the Government to combat global warming but they should go much further. The situation is critical and requires urgent global action now. Although the impact of UK emissions is relatively small we must be seen to be doing everything possible at home to have credibility on the world stage.
I support the Government's position on deforestation and increasing sustainable forestation.
Plant growth is the only way in which CO2 can be positively removed from the atmosphere and this must be increased by any means possible.
Some countries, including China and Brazil, are now actively planting forests for environmental reasons. We must encourage this and re-double our efforts to stop tropical forest reductions in South America, Asia and Africa. It is of equal importance that the CO2 fixed by plant growth is not promptly returned to the atmosphere.
With regard to renewable energy the use of concentrated solar power (CSP) is likely to be one of the best technologies for a global solution. The technology is all available and it really does have the potential to provide the bulk of the world's energy requirement.
It can also be allied to desalination by using the heat that is not converted into electricity to produce clean water. This could have the added benefit of allowing more plant growth and would be of great importance to many of the hot desert countries where CSP can best be used.
It is disappointing that the UK has not participated to any great extent in the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Co-operation (TREC) or in the Middle East and North African Renewable Energy Co-operation (MENAREC) conferences.
Germany has been the principal European country funding these initiatives that could be of great benefit to all EUMENA countries and, indeed, to the world. The possibility of importing electricity from hot desert regions to Europe on a high voltage grid is extremely exciting and we ask you to examine the possibilities of the UK playing an active role in such developments.
The use of CSP is not confined to North Africa and the Middle East. China, India, Southern Africa, Australia and America all have suitable desert areas.
I agree with the findings of the Stern Report and recognise its importance but the benefits of carbon trading will take a long time to have a significant effect.
The technology to reverse global warming is available now and we must commit the funds to use it. One percent of world GDP per annum would be a small price to pay even if the developed world has to pay for the under-developed countries as well, after all we are responsible for the damage.
This is war and should be treated as such. At present we are just tinkering around the edges and time is short.
John Collier
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
