The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_29

24 April 2008

Tony Blair cannot possibly be serious about climate change if he allows airport expansion; the two are not compatible. Air travel is already the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. One Jumbo Jet emits more greenhouse gases than all the cars in London's rush hour for one hour - and that statistic comes from before the congestion charge. Surely the future of our planet is more important than people's desire for fast travel.

Judith Dutfield

It is absolutely imperative that year on year targets are incorporated into the climate change bill. Without targets and an independent scrutiny committee there is no incentive or gaurantee that cuts will be made.

Come on Tony. Be remembered as the first Prime Minister brave enough to take a long term view that will ensure our environment for future generations. Give us a reason to vote for you again by showing SERIOUS commitment to reducing the impact of climate change. This is too important and the time scale too short to deliberate or pass on to the next PM.

I literally beg you to implement a climate change bill with annual cuts and scrutiny.
There is no way you will get my vote without it.

Frances May

I'm really pleased the Government has included a climate bill in the Queen's speech. But it needs to be a bill that is worth having, that sets an example to other countries of what can be done. Carbon emissions need to start reducing now if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change - not carry on as they are and drop in 2050. By then we will have emitted too much carbon. To to this we need annual emissions targets and accounting mechanisms.

There are great possibilities for employment and economic benefits from this country getting involved in new technologies or even old ones that will reduce carbon emissions. How about all the jobs that could be created by insulating every building to modern building regulations standards? or by operating public transport? or by manufacturing and installing renewable energy systems like solar panels - if they were a feature of every new house and if there was enough in the Low Carbon fund to pay for panels for every house that could benefit from them?

Some of these things would cost public money - but not as much as not doing anything about climate change.

Rosemary Lovegrove

Dear Mr Blair,

First of all, thank you for initiating this dialog. I first came to live in this country in 1998 from France, as a student. I went back to my country really impressed by what I saw in Britain: although I did not necessarily agree with everything your government was doing, things here were moving on and problems were not only discussed but tackled - a sharp contrast to what often happens in my country. A few years later, even though I was against the war in Iraq, I acknowledged your political courage. The political and economic situation you've helped to create explain why a few years later I gratefully chose to live in this country. Since I moved in the UK a few months ago, I've watched the speed with which Climate Change awareness spread in the country, the Stern Report, the Queen's speech, and I continue to be amazed: all this reinforce my impression that this country is doing more for Climate Change than most other important countries, including, sadly, France.
Thus, you've shown in the past, for better or for worse, a lot of political courage. I'd now be even more impressed if you would lead the world on the narrow path to energy conservation, cuttings in greenhouses gas emissions, and better and less selfish lives. If I am calling on you for that, it is because I recognize that you will need a lot of political courage to achieve this.

I recognize that a lot of people in this country (and probably in all other countries as well) probably don't really care about the problem: they're too absorbed by their own worries, or want to continue to make the most out of their lives, enjoy a big car or the thrill of flying for a week-end in New York. Many others do care about the problem and are getting increasingly worried, but they don't really see why they would deprive themselves of the pleasures life can bring when so many people continue to live as before. The latter get depressed by the idea that while they might be trying to make some efforts themselves, others aren't (individual blame their neighbours; world leaders blame other countries like China). And they're not entirely wrong: as Georges Monbiot puts it, "why bother installing an energy-efficient light bulb when a man in Lanarkshire boast of attaching 1.2 million Christmas lights to his house?" (Heat, 2006, p. xiv). Only a minority of UK residents is prepared to take action, and the fact that the demonstration of Nov. 4th only attracted 30,000 people (at most) clearly shows that Climate Change is not recognized by a high proportion of British population as a problem of major importance. Or does it?

In fact, the problem is much more complex: in spite of what Monbiot calls a "denial industry", a growing number of people are becoming increasingly worried about Climate Change, but they don't really know what to do to prevent it. I've seen many people coming out of the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" really depressed, almost knocked out. That's probably the first reason. The second is, in my opinion, the fact that we are all somehow enslaved by energy. Some historians have described the abolition of slavery as an indirect result of industrialisation: as powerful and rich men in the XIXth century discovered that they could produce more goods with less workforce, they started to listen to those who fought against slavery on moral grounds. In other words, one of the reason why slavery was abolished was because men then realised that they could keep and even improve their material way of life by using fossil fuels instead of bringing over from Africa large quantities of human beings. They thought it was a good idea and that it would help them sleep better at night (it took off the moral burden of slavery). Nowadays, haven't we collectively replaced slaves by oil or electricity? A book recently published in France (Jancovici and Grandjean, "Le Plein S'il Vous Plaît", 2006) estimates that each European (even those on low-income) currently has on average about the equivalent of a hundred servant working full time for him or her (¦ those servants are called cars, central heating, domestic appliances, etc.). In other words, haven't we replaced slavery and cheap labour (in our countries) by oil? Are we like Faust who sold his soul (read the earth) to the devil for the power (read fossil fuel energy) to be able to pick up some grape in the middle of the winter (another striking image given by Monbiot)? Putting it blankly, energy (or oil), is power. As we know, sadly, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (and not only politicians). We're all corrupt! And of course, we don't want to renounce the power that has been given to us by cheap energy; we don't want to give up comfort, warmth, varied and abundant food, mobility and security (because with wealth comes the ability to pay a relatively efficient police, to calm social un-rest, feed the hungry, etc.). That's why Monbiot's fears, expressed in 'Heat', are grounded: as most people in the rich countries will realise that Climate Change is indeed happening, he writes, he fears that "our response will be to demand that the government acts, while hoping that it doesn't. We will wish our governments to pretend to act. We get the moral satisfaction of saying what we know to be right, without the discomfort of doing it. My fear is that the political parties in most rich nations have already recognized this. They know that we want tough targets, but that we also want those targets to be missed. They know that we will grumble about their failure to curb climate change, but that we will not take to the streets. They know that nobody ever rioted for austerity" (p.41-42).

You're wise enough, Mr Blair, to have recognized this already. You know most of the people you represent are in two minds about Climate Change. Yet, YOU are in a position now to make a huge difference, and it can only be by setting annual targets for CO2 emission reduction. Let's start acting now, let's not wait any more, lest it should be too late. So, please, put some annual targets in the bill. We don't need excuses and when you write: "a year is too short a period with too many factors such as a cold winter or a sudden hike in energy prices", it sounds like one. If you are scared that you might miss the target one year, then set yourself a target of 3%, but aim for a more ambitious target (say 5%). If you miss the higher target, then you'll still be able to meet the lower one; even if you don't, if you've shown a strong commitment, you won't be blamed. And by the way, in the above example, hikes in energy prices seem to me to be more likely to reduce CO2 emissions, not increase them.

I won't go into technical details on how annual targets can be made possible, firstly because I do believe that the problem is more political (the lack of political will and probably support from the population) than technical and secondly because comments made before mine on this forum can provide you with several good ideas; you also know that you can get plenty of advice from a lot of people from various backgrounds and expertise (I'd be happy, as a historian, to look in more depth at the issue of rationing during the second world war or other periods to see whether it could bring some ideas in the carbon rationing vs green taxes debate).

For the reasons expressed above, implementing annual targets will require a lot of courage, but as I've written, you've shown plenty in the past. Don't only set targets for other to achieve when you will are out of the office. You'll have historians and the future on your side. If you don't want to act now, I urge you to think about what you'll say to your children or grand-children when you are old and life is much harder on earth than it is now. They'll ask you questions: what did you do to tackle Climate Change when you were in charge of the country? Did you not know what was happening? Do you think our children will judge our generation in a more positive way than we now judge slave-owners societies of the 18th-19th century? Do you think they will understand why we failed to act? My children and my grand-children will probably ask me the same questions and that's one of the main reasons why I am writing this letter at this late hour of the night. I must say I don't think I'll be able to look at them straight back in their eyes when they will ask me; I'll be too ashamed. Shall we not act now?

Jean Francois-Mouhot

Dear Prime Minister,

As an average householder with a family, I welcome your efforts to deal with climate change which affects all of us now and our children especially so in the future. Of course the efforts of the UK alone is not enough to make a real difference to the effort tackle the problem of carbon emmission. That is where the populace look to the government to bring as much pressure to bear on the countries that polute the most, (who also seem the most unwilling to take action), such as Russia, India, China and America. All efforts must be concentrated on a diplomatic solution but if they do not respond then other measures must be considered. For example, with many jobs being offshored to India, it may be worth thinking about imposing a carbon neutral condition before jobs can be transferred there.

On the domestic front there is much more that can be done without excessive government expenditure. Recently there has been considerable advances in solar energy technology. Perhaps it is an opportune moment to bring in legislation to compel new domestic (and light industrial?) buildings to have solar energy as part of the build. Whether this is used to generate electricity, heat water or both (new units that do both are now commercially available) is immaterial. It WILL help. It will also help reduce domestic energy bills.

I'm sure many of the electorate have ideas on how we can bring in measures to reduce the effect of climate change which is why I am glad that this opportunity to discuss the matters has been provided by yourself and FOE.

Jim Cooper

Thank you firstly to Tony Blair for recognising the importance of climate change and ignoring the tiny minority of mis-informed people who do not believe that climate change is happening and is important. Thank you also for agreeing the need for action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions - rather than taking the easy option (also suggested by others on this message board) and saying 'it's too late to do anything now'.

I would like to disagree with you on 2 points. Firstly, investing in nuclear power is not the sensible way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As Tony Juniper has eloquently explained, there is an long delay between commisioning a new nuclear plant and the production of any electricity from it. This means that the expansion of solar or wind power, together with investment in energy efficiency programmes would be much more effective in reducing emissions now. If we are considering nuclear power as a longer-term solution, I believe that the huge amounts of money involved in building a new generation of nuclear reactors would be better invested in developing other sustainable energy sources, particularly wave power - which has tremendous potential.

Secondly, annual targets for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are essential. If we fail to meet these targets in any one year - because it is a cold winter as in your example - this is not important as long as the government can explain why we failed to meet the target and what it will do to ensure we meet the target in the next year. I can accept that emissions will vary year-to-year but we must make sure that mechanisms are in place to ensure that generally the tradjectory is downwards.
I believe that if we introduce annual targets, invest in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, and ensure that the European emissions trading scheme is effective (and includes aviation) the UK will truly be taking an international lead on this vital issue, and other countries will follow. We cannot use the excuse that China, India and America are not acting to reduce their emissions. If we took that attitude to other issues - nothing would ever get done. Instead we must act now to provide an example of successful economic growth alongside reduced emissions and thereby persuade tham to act too.

Tom Agombar

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 >