The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_69 July 2008
I remember almost 10 years ago when I decided to study physics (I was 14) that climate change was a major issue. Also the scope for developing fusion power was there (its resolution effectively solving the energy crisis overnight), the science was clear, yet the funding at home and internationally was well short. Here we have a totally clean energy source which has blatantly been the way forward for over a decade. How about instead of turning on individuals we face the fact that, with rising populations , science (and not politics, economics or the military) that have brought us to this advanced stage of civilisation and actually putting the money in and letting these dedicated individuals develop the next technological solution? This support, and the development of this technology, would be more than overdue. It is time to take a philisophical step back and instead of marvelling at the modern age, being realistic about why we are here to ensure that we all stay here for a bit longer.
Harry Holmes
I dont believe the Climate Chaos rhetoric. There are many scientists who question the assumptions that man is responsible. Because it suits the tax man and the greens you have joined together as though it is a fact. It isnt and I dont want to be taxed for something I didnt do.
Robert Bull
We are in the middle of one of the largest new home building programmes ever seen in the south-east of England. Already a huge opportunity has been missed. Unless you act very quickly, the oppportunity to tackle domestic energy efficiency and sustainability in a realistic manner will have been missed completely. If all new homes were built and wired from the start to enable the connection of an alternative energy generation (solar or wind-powered), this action would give individuals more freedom to install such systems without such huge initial costs. Go further and put solar panels on every new home. For large commercial developments, give real incentives to install heat exchange systems. Although I am usually in favour of devolution, leaving this decision to dithering local planners has been ineffective. Developers can easily incorporate the costs of renewable energy schemes - the increase to the cost of new homes would be minimal. If you leave it to individuals or just start penalising individuals with green taxes, you will fail.
Steve Johnson
I think if the government realy want to make a real difference then house building regulations should include rules to make the fitting of solar panels and wind turbines compulsary on all new builds and also ban all 4x4's no one NEEDS them , at the same time cut the number of busses that run every few minutes in towns and cities and make more available for the country side ..and also to riegn in the arrogant U S A and other high polluters ..America does'nt do enough and expects everyone to bend over backwards to support them.The Government should lead by example ,so where are all the electric and twin fueled cars they could use to potter about London in instead of limo's .
The Government should encourage the growing of fuel crops ,,less duty on bio fuels ,If anyone buy's vegatable oil and uses it to run thier car why should they have to pay duty on it,it is not petrol or deisel... I do not drive ..
Peter Bibby
When I worked in Saudi Arabia, the local people I spoke to claimed they could pump up to 15 million barrels of oil per day (at the very peak) for the next 15 years. Personally I doubt it when you see what's happening in Saudi.
My point is that when oil runs out, it will be problem solved, the World will grind to a halt and we can move back to the caves, as you would prefer us to do.
I also think that it is a very arrogant assumption that we could expect other countries like India, China to follow our lead, it smacks of that old Imperialist attitude. If I was a leader of a country with a totally different culture and the British said you cant have that car, fridge, etc I would not be that concerned. Perhaps Britain might invade me and kick me out!
Julian
I thought your posting was informative and showed that this is an issue which you have obviously thought about and started to address.
However, I must challenge your assertion that Britain "only" is responsible for 2% of Global emmissions. While 2% sounds like a low figure, when put into perspective of percentage of world population, 2% is more than double per capita head of the global average.
To say that other nations are using more energy than we are sounds like a ploy to negate our responsibilty, or at least make it sound less "bad".
I understand from your response that you are aware that something needs to be done now. As such I would implore you not diminish the damage that we are doing as a nation, as I believe that this encourages complacency. The "man on the street" will not feel a need to change his personal disposable culture until he recognises the danger that he is posing.
Karen Teague
A quick question for either of you two.
You both agree that domestic emissions need to be reduced. You also both agree on the efficacy of the price system in changing people's behaviour.Why then are neither of you campaigning to have the subsidy to domestic energy and fuel use removed? Tony Juniper calls the lack of duty and VAT on avaiation fuel and flights a subsidy. Why is the special low VAT rate on domestic fuel and energy not a similar subsidy that must also be removed?
Tim Worstall
Surely we in the UK are in an ideal location for generating safe, clean electricity.
We have all the coast for wave and tidal powered generation. The number wind farms though already in use could be increased (I personally would not complain if one appeared close to my home - my childrens future is more important than my view). We used to hear a lot about geothermal generation, is it still an option.
Could all new homes be built with solar panels? or even retro fit them to existing homes in a similar way as loft insulation was encouraged/financed.
Paul Miller
I have to first ask, what does reducing our carbon emissions actually mean. This has always been a grey area for me. Does it mean the total carbon emission or the ratio of green to non-green emissions (ie a balance being carbon neutral).
I believe there are many ways in which we can help to achieve a carbon neutral/negative footprint. Incentives like reducing the cost of green energy (biodiesel, bio powered electricity stations, wind and water power generation etc)by tax and charge incentives (the government does have the power to force companies into lowering the price increases as it has been done it before. During and after the two world wars), and increasing taxes on imports from non-green energy countries.
This would steer more companies towards using green energy. However, I also believe that this countries government (current or future) will not implement such measures due to the incentives from the OPEC countries that would lose out if such measures were to be put in force.
The Arab nations main source of income is from fossil fuels. Remove the worlds dependance on fossil fuel and the Arab nations become poor. What would they do to compensate? Find other sources of income or use terror to fight back? This is a very difficult and sensitive area (although, the Arab nations are best suited to produce biofuels due to the large amounts of sunshine they receive).
Tony Upton
I am not sure who this aplies to but i can point out a few things wrong and a way to solve it.
congestion increasing, you mention and an increase in tax for pollutant cars.
Congestion charging is not the answer, extra tax on fuel is not the answer.
A good sollution is to either make public transport free, or help to make it cheaper.
Give people more insentive to have lower co2 cars. give people money towards having cars converted and your problem will be halved.
Encourage the manufacters to produce eco friendly cars and help build the britsh car industry again so we dont have to rely on over seas. That will also reduce the co2. Put a block to building on green belt land. Vet and reduce the people coming into the country and then the need for housing will be reduced.
Ban China and India from importing into this country or reduce the amount of imports that will then give them less orders and reduce pollution.
Simon James
One of the biggest obstacles to success in the climate change debate is a lack of education. People tend to have the attitude 'we recycle' and that's all they need to do.
This is the main thing that needs to be combated. Whether this is done through punitive taxes (for example taxing the ridiculous usage of plastic bags -- a success in the Republic of Ireland), through a wider educational campaign (my childhood's Green Cross Code springs to mind as a successful one), or a combination of both is where the debate should centre. The final option is an obvious one, but it's getting the balance right.
I encounter most wastage in the workplace, so that's where it should start. But with businesses feeling there's too much red tape, it's a difficult balancing act. However, if any taxes or regulations could be balanced with sweeteners and awareness of the obvious cost savings (energy, materials such as paper etc.) this would be a bonus. The clear marketing benefits of being 'carbon neutral' may encourage some organisations in certain industries to lead the way.
Let's be honest, we could go on forever. But the inertia around us will only be combated when it impacts wallets. Ring-fenced taxes and education are the obvious way...
Matt Singleton
1. Why do we cower and give large chunks of business to China to effectively poison their population and create more pollution on the planet. Aren't they still a dictatorship in sheep's clothing. and yet the West is very hypocritical in saying nothing. In fact they more or less encourage and pay this regime to hold us to ransom in the future.
2. What ever happened to the concept of hydrogen powered cars with the by-product only being water?
3. My father recently got a cold weather payment of 200 pounds. Why can't such money be poured into government subsidies for households to install solar panels or mini wind powered facilities on thier roofs? We've spent millions on Iraq trying to secure a nasty polluting power source, when those millions could've been better spent on cleaner energy investments.
Wayne Beckett
Tony Blair says in his presentation that he recognises "that we have little time before climate change becomes irreversible and possibly catastrophic". In the light of this statement why is it still possible to buy an airline ticket for £0.01? Why is aviation fuel untaxed? Why is he still building runways? And why should anyone be able to drive around in this country in a huge 4x4 doing 15 miles to the gallon? If he accepts the problem is urgent why has he not already taken urgent action? Please focus on that - my core question. I am not asking what plans he has for the future. I am asking why - during almost 10 years in power - he has not taken urgent and dramatic action? And please stop going on about economic growth. Growth cannot continue forever - we must recognise that. I get fed up with hearing (including from his government) that this must be a concerted global effort (in other words - don't blame us, we're only small - blame the Chinese). What about doing something real NOW - in this country - and setting an example for the rest of the world to follow? That is what we used to be very good at.
Nicolas Lyons
Install air filtering systems on top of every building of every major city. (Perhaps even every house should have one.) Every building/business should be made to install these gigantic filtation systems on their roof tops. Make business pay to run them and keep the filters clean. Another business tax but it makes sense.
Chris Ford
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
