The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_3124 April 2008
Dear Tony Blair,
I welcome your recognition of the positive effect the work of FoE and other such groups have had in raising environmental issues up the political agenda. I hope you will continue to view the work of these groups as worthy of your attention and realise that when we reach a different conclusion from you, it is not because we do not understand the issues. FoE staff give us a thoroughly researched, well informed opinion, with only the best interests of the planet and the life on it in mind.
As you realise, we have not got time to make more mistakes in our efforts to counter climate change. Unfortunately long term targets have not worked. Annual targets will focus our minds and give this issue the priority, we all agree it must have. At present your determination to stick to long term targets sends completely the wrong message to the population as a whole and particularly to Local Authorities.
There are many FoE members who, like myself are engaged in getting local authorities to take there responsibilities about climate change seriously. It is no use your just saying how urgent the situation is; you must take actions that underline this. Please support the 3%/year average targets for emissions reduction.
I also wish to urge you to abandon your wish to build new nuclear power stations. These are no answer to our future power needs. I find it quite difficult to understand how, in the face of all the strong evidence against nuclear power with regard to safety, economics, safe storage of waste, terrorism, weapons proliferation and not least, the exploitation of indigenous populations where uranium is mined, leaving them with the most hazardous waste, that you could reach the decision you have. I am active in the South Lakeland local group of Friends of the Earth and when we run anti-nuclear actions we receive massive support from the population, but our voice is often not heard above the vested interests of the nuclear industry.
We understand that it will take over 100 years to store the present waste and of course at least a million years for it to become safe. As long as it has taken us to develop from primitive man. How can it be acceptable to you to support more nuclear power, when the alternatives are so attractive.
Margaret Sanders
I cannot see the problem with annual targets. The government appears to accept that emissions should fall by 60% by 2050. It is generally accepted that this requires an annual average reduction of about 3.5%. This would almost never happen in real life, the real figure year by year would sometimes be lower, at other times higher. If higher, then action would have to be taken immediately to ensure that the increase is compensated by a greater than average reduction.
If the government sets five year targets, it would be totally irresponsible to wait for this time before it does anything about what may have become an irretrievable situation. In other words, the situation must be monitored regularly. So what is wrong with yearly average targets?
John Walker
Modern warfare is fuelling climate change. According to American statistics "of the total U.S. government liquid fuel use, about 97% of that is consumed by the Department of Defense, making that agency the world's single largest fuel-burning entity." (Hubberts Defense Department- Life after Peak Oil). This statistic does not include incidents such as burning oil fields. As you know British statistics are more difficult to obtain but it would be a safe bet to assume much the same situation. If the political will is there, climate change can be mitigated against. Crucial to this will be a stop to aggressive and fossil fuel based military activity worldwide.
Marianne Bennett
Global warming has finally been recognized by the world's leading scientists and I am encouraged by your words of concern and acknowledgement. I invite you to consider "global climate change" as the larger picture and how the actions of the Industrial Growth Society is driving this process. As pointed out in the "Awakening the Dreamer, Changing the Dream Symposium", created by the Pachamama Alliance and promoted in Europe by the organization Be The Change, we must awaken from the trance of the industrial world and realize our own actions are driving all the imbalance in the world, environmentally, socially and spiritually. Admitting we are the source of the destruction allows us the space to reconsider our actions and return to wholeness. I ask you to help stop the destruction to our only home in the name of all future being who wish to be born and experience the beauty of life.
Vince Brown
If climate change is regarded as the number one threat to our way of life, why has it yet to be tackled with the same decisiveness as the war on terror? Surely we need a 'War Room' approach to solve this problem - top flight ministers, civil servants, and industry leaders seconded into a dedicated 24*7 war room that drives and coordinates programmes to solve these issues. I would expect such a team to provide day by day leadership, initiate and drive change, set the legal framework, promote the cause, fund projects, communicate status. They should have the highest profile of any government department/body. How is it that our response to terrorism can be so dynamic and focussed and yet our response to global warming is one of interminable debate? The time for debate is surely over â€" we need directive/prescriptive action. Explain what needs to be done and then just do it.
Ian Richardson
With so many new homes needed to house our ever increasing population, I think we would be missing a great oportunity if legislation is not introduced, forcing builders to include renewable energy technology wherever possible in new build.
On a personal level I have found it very difficult to find information and get advice on energy saving technology, costs are prohibitive, and not being eligible for most grants I am disappointed that loans like those available for small businesses are not also available to householders.
Sharon Herd
Much of what has been said already I agree with but here are some alternatives:- If we put tax on avaition fuel then airlines will buy elswhere. This is a global problem and can only be solved globally.
Global warming is happening, and will continue to happen. There is evidence to suggest that some of this is a natural event and that we are overdue for climate change. The UK has been coverd in ice, and been tropical in its history. It is clear that our overuse of carbon fuels is accelerating the problem and the consequences of that may be catastrophic for life on the planet as a whole, so we do have to get to grips with this, but on a global basis. I hope that we can be a leader in this but the'little Britain' we can do it all' attitude(like closing airports) is just not going to happen. Its a nieve and pointless tack.
Carbon emmissions are clearly a major threat, as are other things, but the biggest threat to human survival is the unsustainable human population epansion rate. More humans cause more carbon release, but also consume more land, food, water and energy, but no-one is dealing with this, presumably because of the political difficulties.
I absolutely agree with Andrew Tweedies submissions in (a)&(B)but not (c).
Martin Forge
Less talk, more action from HMG please!
LC Jackson
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
