The Big Ask Climate Debate comments_89 July 2008
ALL political parties are missing a golden opportunity for the UK to lead the World in technological developments that could help the environment and provide export potential of that know how.
Most of their measures are half hearted gestures that have little effect - probably because any real measures would bring the economy crashing down !
One example:- Employ say ex Rover engineers to build a "peoples car" that is designed so it can be refurbished after say 10 years ie rebuilt engines, computer upgrades, new suspension etc...and designed so it can be serviced by small garages in rural areas and designed so techonolgical developments can be incorporated at any time.
It would also be fully recyclable and spares would be interchangeable and components would be designed to be refurbished rather than thrown away...
The car would be designed to save weight and be corrosion resistant - bonded aluminium perhaps ?
That would save recources and employ people.
The trouble is here, is that it would be a simple A to B design that would be "boring" to the motoring public of 2006.
However, if WE are serious about tackling climate change, then we have to forget "image" and be a bit more responsible.
As an incentive, owners of these "boring" cars would pay little or no road tax, no congestion charges etc... and let your BMW X5 drivers on the school run pay dearly for the privilege.This is only one step that is possible, I just wish the governments had a bit more imagination instead of taxing us to death to try and control our lives.
Mark Stubbs
Can the government introduce planning policy guidance or a legal framework which allows local authorities to refuse planning permission unless sustainable construction and energy efficiency criteria are met by developers?
B Clemence
I agree with Chris Woodruff, the biggest offenders in producing huge emissions of pollutants are U.S.A. China and India, the UK's contribution is minuscule in comparison so why is it the British public get hammered for it? In my opinion it's another Tony Blair ego trip and another way to extort more cash, in the way of green taxes, out of already hard pressed taxpayers without actually doing anything positive in tackling green issues. The only people winning here are U.S.A., China and India.
Neville George
I think one of the biggest changes we can make towards climate change is by getting people out of their cars. To do this, an integrated public transport system must be built.
I live in Pocklington, which 13 miles away from York. The town used to be served by a railway line but this was unfortunately shut down in the 1960's, due to the Beeching Report. York operates a park and ride service for commuters, which has been working well in cutting congestion in the city centre. However, people still have to rely on their cars to get to the park and ride. The only service that commuters have in the east riding of Yorkshire is the Bus service. I use the service myself and find that the buses are usually late, many of them need updating and the cost of a weekly ticket works out the same as fuel for the car. This makes the service unusable for most commuters.
Something has to be done to integrate the public transport system, not just in Yorkshire but throughout the UK. The only solution I can see is the introduction of railway lines, linking rural towns to city stations / park and ride schemes.
James Ransome
For our own sake we need to invest and research into alternative technology to power cars, industry etc. Oil and petrol will eventually run out anyway.
Mark Winters
Has the gov of Foe ever considered supporting the eletric city car with renewable energy supplies to recharge the batteries . Agrea range of cars scooters motorcycles and small vans are all makde in the U.K It is also worth pointing out that in rural areas of N.I.the otential for using animal slurries is tremendouse however no one supports such innovative technologies
Kevin Taylor
why don't we aim to plant a billion trees across the world in 2007 - in line with what UNEP are doing with the billion trees campaign and the green belt movement in kenya
the benefits are enormous and wide-ranging - curbing desertification, soil conservation, water quality maintenance and conservation, improve air quality, carbon sequestration, shade for crops, biodiversity habitat, landscape and greening, plus the trees themselves can offer fruit or energy crops (energy crops of course requires commitment to replant any trees harvested... ...
forest landscape restoration has huge potential
Julie Bygraves
Unfortunately I don't know enough about the various "greener" options to comment on which would be the way forward - which is exactly my point. While there are thousands of websites, organizations and charities across the world promoting and championing the environmental issues, my question remains, where are the basics? You can't build a house without knowing how to lie bricks, plaster, paint etc. In the same way I can't recycle if I don't even have the basic knowledge or information readily - and that's the key word - readily - available on what can be recycled. Why is there no collaboration between let's say FOE and Sainsbury's and ITV (which could be saved simply by focussing on environmental issues!) whereby nightly we have informative programmes. Again, I'm not talking big budget - how costly can it be to take one cameraman, one presenter, and one shop and item for item walk through the isles telling me what can be recycled and what can't. Same principle applies with the Metro - why is there no daily page with a few simply products each day telling me whether it is recycable or not? Basics people, basics. If I had this info, do you think I would still buy the products that aren't recycle or reusable and surely that's where the major difference will be achieved. All sectors will be affected if people stopped buying harmful products which in turn will force producers to change their production of various materials, foods, appliances etc, or alternatively be forced to close. In the same light, the various "earth, people and animal friendly" organizations need to change their approaches dramatically too. Why can't you all form one universal organization, seeing that most of you champion similar causes in any way, and as a larger base have a much higher impact? Oxfam for instance - took clothes there last weekend only to be told that that particular store doesn't accept clothes, only books etc? Make yourself and your organizations more accessible and easier to help. Another point, how many people do you think are actually going to try and make a difference unless we are shown the facts. I keep on reading and hearing reports, let's take your Asian Paper example, telling me that Indonesians' rainforest is disappearing. Sorry - seeing is believing for the majority of people so don't bore me to death with facts and figures - show me pictures. This is the problem with most websites on this subject matter, the reports are outdated (I believe anything older than two years should be null and void) and there is simply too many places to click and links etc. I can ofcourse go on an on, but I am sure you get my point - simplicity and basics will always achieve much more than grand terminology, scientific reports which very few of us understand, and simple demonstrations of the various options would go a long long way changing peoples' perceptions. One more point sorry - there is a huge gap in the market I believe for appliance companies to regain a lot of respect from us - simply tell your suppliers that you are no longer interested in a standby function - surely we can push a button on and off if we can do the same on a remote? If the choice isn't there, then we can't commit the sin now can we? Taxes! Instead of taxing offenders, why can't I instead receive a tax break if I conform? How long do you think it will take offenders to change if there is a saving in it for them if they change - money is indeed the reason for very few things changing or being implemented!
Adele van Staden
Well done FoE! Keep up the pressure - we haven't got long.
Would TB & TJ rehearse their arguments on annual targets and nuclear power to a wider audience in a full, televised debate?
If TJ could call a witness for the cheap, rapid and massive dividends of investing in energy efficiency rather than in nuclear power supply, then he should call Amory Lovins (www.rmi.org). He won that argument in the USA over 25 years ago. Perhaps TB could invite him to tea.
David Crawford
man made global warming is not happening. I did not know canute had so many courtiers still extant.
Even Christopher Monckton is to soft on this scientifically engineered fraud.
John Prendergast
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
