The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_2824 April 2008
In business financial targets are set every year, based on past performance and future predictions. The aim is to meet them but there are any number of factors which may prevent this. The situation is analysed, measures taken to avoid recurrence if possible of the problems that have been identified, and all this is taken into account when setting the next year's targets. No business person would suggest that because targets can't always be met there is no point in setting them.
It's the same with carbon emissions. We need annual targets for an accurate assessment of progress.
Virginia Fassnidge
Dear Mr Blair
Please do not go ahead with the Nuclear Power Programme. It makes no sense even to many members of your own government. It is dirty, dangerous and the waste is just buried and left for future generations to deal with - is that responsible? We live on a windy island, lets make more use of what we have got naturally
Many thanks
Ghislaine Headland-Vanni
Dear Mr Blair
Thank you for your efforts to achieve the Kyoto targets, and for introducing a Climate Change Bill. These are important first steps.
But your arguments against annual targets give the impression that you have not understood the proposals contained in the 2005 bill introduced by Michael Meacher.
A year is not too short to be a meaningful trigger for action. The original bill requires that, if the annual target is not met, an assessment is made of why it was not met. This would include such things as cold winters, sudden hikes in energy prices, and any other factors outside government control. Then, if necessary, the strategy would be adjusted to get back on target, taking into account these factors.
So annual targets would not force action to be taken if it is known the problem is a temporary one. And a strategy that has small annual adjustments is less likely to hit families and business than a strategy that has sudden, big adjustments every five years.
The important thing about annual targets is that they keep the current government accountable, and they keep focus on the issue. The government has a 2010 target for carbon dioxide emissions, but between 2000 and 2005 these emissions went up by 2.7%! Even the overall "basket of greenhouse gases", the six most important gases combined, against which the Kyoto target is measured, went down only 1% in this same period. I don't know why this progress was so slow; maybe there's a good reason. If there had been annual targets, either we'd have made more progress, or I'd know why we hadn't.
I agree that UK policies are important in setting an example to other countries, which is why nuclear power cannot be part of the solution. It is a non-renewable source of energy, and is not free of carbon emissions: mining and milling of ores, building and decommissioning of power stations, and storage of the waste require energy. One life cycle analysis (http://www.stormsmith.nl) shows that a nuclear power station is already responsible for a fifth to a third of the carbon emissions of a gas fired power station.
As high grade ores are used up, a point is soon reached where the energy input is greater than the energy output. The above mentioned study has shown that there is enough uranium ore to meet only 4 years of world electricity usage, or 6 years if decommissioning is ignored.
That's before even starting on the huge problems of dealing with the waste, the dangers of accidents and terrorism, the fact that the government will always have to underwrite the decommissioning costs, and the question of whether you'd be happy for any other country to adopt nuclear power.
Finally, if airport expansion go ahead, do you accept that all other sectors will have to reduce their emissions to zero to meet your 2050 target?
Bernard Burns
Dear Prime Minister,
I welcome the positive statements you have made about tackling climate change and I am very relieved to see that there is to be a Climate Change Bill. However, I am concerned that the Bill will not be robust enough. We need an annual target of AT LEAST 3% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. If we exceed 3% in any one year, we can build up a credit which could be used in a bad year. Not to set an annual target leaves it open for one administration to blame another for the failure to take us out of danger.
One method of achieving an annual reduction could be through domestic tradeable carbon credits.
Marianne Jones
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
