±«Óătv

Nick,

I hope you're going to ask Ministers why they are claiming any credit for Britain's reduced emissions relative to 1990 when, since 1997, they have overseen a growth in UK CO2.

The decline in UK carbon output was down to the one-off closure of the coal industry under John Major - a policy the Labour Party opposed, and one which can't be repeated to get further reductions.

Please don't stand for the excuse that Labour has 'decoupled' carbon emissions from economic growth - that is exactly the same excuse used by George Bush to avoid action by the American government.

Blair, Brown, Milliband and co. have to admit that their entire carbon policy to date has been one of complete neglect. The only way forward is for the government to commit to annual reductions in CO2 with heavy penalties for failure.

Before taxing everyone this government can do some things immediately.

1 Ban businesses leaving lights on overnight

2 Get local authhorities to turn off at least one in two street lights (many are not needed) and insist that energy efficient bulbs ( led lights would be an alternative) are used

3 Stop putting up so many aluminium signs. Aluminium is the most energy consuming metal available. Wiltshire is replacing aluminium direction signs with renewable spruce wood ones.

4 Review HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDELINES. Some of these insist that businesses do things which are both unneeded and energy inefficient

45 years from Doom?

In my opinion taxing us for polluting the environment will not reduce our carbon emissions, it will only raise revenue for the treasury. If the government is serious about cutting our emissions then they need to legilsate against bad practice and subsidise good practice.

Nick is absolutely right in what he says - if anything he understates the point.

Labour certainly shouldn't get credit for cutting emissions of carbon dioxide because they are actually higher now than when they came to power. Ministers usually claim a cut in "greenhouse gases" because fortunately the rise in carbon dioxide emissions has been offset by cuts in other greenhouse gases. However this too is nothing to do with Labour policy - more changes in manufacturing processes that happened as companies modernised (and manufactuiring processes largely moved overseas).

This is just another stealth tax. Do they really think we are that stupid!

What will they do with all the extra money raised? There has been no mention of grants to improve the housing stock or more investment in Green technologies.

Tony - give us a break.

I have two questions that I want answering here:

1) Which other taxes will be reduced or scrapped to be replaced by these new "green" taxes? ( Yeah, though so!)

2)How much does the hot air created at Westminster contribute to global warming?

yet another stick with no real carrot.

I dont want to drive my car into work every day but public transport is so bad I have no other choice. we need investment in light rail schemes, railways improved and co-ordinated bus services.

give me a choice first!

what we need to do it not rocket science, how to do it and doing it will be a whole lot harder.

oh dear the bbc is giving air time to lots of extreme nutters today

is this the govts attempt to divert attention away from 3rd world service in the nhs and the war?

you would be better to give the silent majority some air time, some of the nhs protest groups, the association of british drivers etc

any idea how much extra carbon goes into the atmosphere every time a car needlessly brakes for a speedcamera?

anyone prepared to tell cyclists they are supposed to obey red lights also?

what nonsense, 5 minutes helping the chinese use better industrial chimney equipment would have more impact than the whole of the UK jumping like lemmings into the sea and stopping our emmissions totally

High Nick,

If this government is serious about reducing carbon emmissions, would it not be an idea(since this government seems hell bent on turning this country into one big apartment block) that they insist on all the housebuilding companies putting solar panels on each new house/apartment block....this would drive down the cost of solar panels and then make it an affordable option for other homeowners in this country. Also, and probably even more controversial than that idea, ban companies from putting standby buttons on electrical appliances. This would have a twofold effect, as all those people increasing there daily exercise by having to actually get up to turn the television off would put less of a strain on the NHS

Blair has said Britain is to lead the world in the fight against climate change and set an example to the world this is the same Britain that can`t...

Bridge the north/south divide in a very small country like England.

Can`t run it`s National Health Service because of it`s total incompetence.

That can`t provide housing or provides very poor housing for so MANY MILLIONS of it`s own people.

That enters into two wars that are killing hundreds of thousands of men women and children on the whim of a madmen.

And Blair wants to lead the world by example.

As a former sceptic my 'conversion' seems to have mirrored the growth of the apparent consensus. I think that this is a direct result of the gathering evidence. Evidence that outlines a scenario I find alarming.

The evidence for, at the very least, a role for CO2 in the recent warming of 0.6 degrees C in the last 30 years (according to NASA's Goddard Institute) is crushing. Especially against a background of steady solar activity for between about the last 30 and 50 years. Indeed in 1988 Jim Hansen of NASA presented a graph to the US Congress, showing his projection for increasing temperature with increasing CO2. His work has been borne out by subsequent observation. And it is generally agreed that the recent warming is very probably due to human activity, mainly CO2. Despite pretence to the contrary, the science is complex, but in broad terms it is not controversial. We are warming the planet.

So the much-maligned science, all the stronger for the strenuous assaults on it's ingegrity, is now able to convince the informed of the need for action.

However the question remains what are we to do? And here I think the aims of our politicians fail against reality.

The accelerating melt of the Arctic ice cap, along with the warming of the oceans, and other processes, mean that the warming of 0.2 Degrees C per decade seen for the last 3 decades has not yet taken us to the warming we would expect for the current 36% above pre-industrial CO2 levels. So people look to their leaders against a background of a time delay between the level of CO2 and when one might expect to see the temperature increase implied by that level. This time delay will increase the further and faster we continue to emit CO2.

Furthermore based on paleo-climate research from the previous glacials and interglacials. We can be reasonably confident that the temperature to be expected eventually from twice the pre-industrial level of CO2 is of the order of 3 degrees C. But this is based on evidenced precedent, we are actually pushing CO2 above the levels in the last 650,000 years. This is why The Stern Review also mentions a 50% chance of 5 degrees C. We are actually entering unknown territory, a period for which we have no paleological analogue. Surprises are to be expected.

Fossil fuels are not like CFCs which were phased out by the Montreal Protocol. That was succesful, and very slowly the 'ozone holes' are waning. Energy from fossil fuels is the key-stone of our society. And modernising countries, notably China and India are relying on fossil fuels to modernise, they show no signs of skipping that stage of development, as some had suggested. China is concentrating on lignite burning, which produces more CO2 per joule of energy gained, and emits aerosols which have a cooling effect - further regionally masking the warming we are committed to.

In view of our dependence of fossil fuels, the lack of viable alternatives, and the costs of reducing CO2 emissions (increased costs against an ever-more competitive global market). The politicians are in a very difficult position. They are compelled to act by the scientific evidence and projections. Yet at the same time they are voted in by an electorate used to expecting ever increasing standards of living, based on local and global economic performance, and the availability and use of fossil fuels. The fuels that are causing the threat we face.

So whilst I find the scientific arguments compelling. I do not find the proposals for dealing with this threat at all persuasive. I see no attainable option, and The Stern Review has not changed my opinion.

Of course it is always possible that technology could come to our rescue. But 30 years ago, as a teenager, I had a book that included a section on nuclear fusion. That has still not been developed commercially, and I am now old enough to have learnt about the 'electricity too cheap to meter' that nuclear fission once promised us.

There is only one outcome to all this.

Whether you love them or hate them such things as the car are an absolute necessity for modern society, which can only mean that green taxes, especially on motoring, will push inflation through the roof.

UK PLC is on the ropes because of a huge black hole in it's finances. Why Gordon thinks that an additional tax take is the solution I am not sure.

One thing that, until sombody come to me with some actual genuine proof, I refuse to belive in is anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, I do not believe that the government believe in it either.

Anthropogenic climate change is an agenda, not a fact.

How much CO2 was released in the invasion of Iraq I wonder? You don't get many miles to the gallon in a Tornado.

The best scientists in the World can't say for sure that Global warming exists, where did this bandwagon come from and why do I have to pay for it.

I can see why the Labour party jumped on it, ahh we can can control people lives through taxes, but why have the Conservatives?

lets us all be honest about this new green tax... all it really is an underhanded way from a goverment which cannot be trusted with anything but financial gain to raise more taxes for the benefit not of the people or the enviroment but the over paid over rated and whimpy MP themselves.

I can’t help but shudder when Blair starts using words such as “no doubt” and “overwhelming” as they are echoes of his justification for the invasion of Iraq. And so, it’s important for me to hear the message on global warming from someone who’s judgment has not been so catastrophically wrong in the past before I accept the fundamental and far reaching changes that are being proposed; as I’m sure they will be more painful, profound and expensive than we are being told.

Naturally, Blair couldn’t resist giving himself a get out clause by using his usual lawyer’s “weasel words” of “if” and “could” and so it’s important that the evidence is subject to thorough independent review and not, as Stern has done, just accepted as fact.

There is agreement that the issue of global warming can only be successfully addressed through international agreements. I’m confident that the British public will play their part however they will not accept the “triple whammy” of changing their lifestyle, paying more taxes and still suffering the effects of Global Warming if the big polluters do not agree to act as well. For me it’s a matter of credibility, probability and fairness.

Can I just point something out to the people using the justification that the "worlds top scientists can't say for sure"?

The basic point of science is that there is no "proof". Of anything. There is only evidence that past a certain point, determined by the scientific standard, somethings happen often enough to be considered significant.

Gravity, Fusion, Electrical Conduction, for example. Yet despite the "lack of proof" I'm not sat here floating away from the keyboard, the sun has not suddenly gone out, and the power cables still carry enough charge for me to run my computer.

"lack of proof" is the get out term here , not ifs and buts.

But people will only believe this inconvenient truth when the London Eye is a waterwheel, and the newly built Wembley is a paddling pool. Personally, I'm rather glad there's a lot of hills in Sheffield .

I think we all just need to stand back and draw breath for a minute. The fact that Nicholas Stern has indicated that urgent action is needed doesn’t mean we all need to start paying Green Taxes tomorrow, trade in our cars for bikes and go back to using coach and horses to get around the country. In fact, even if we were to do these things it would make precious little difference.

Stern has indicated that it is a global macro-economic problem. What we need to do therefore is to sit down and prioritise our strategies. The single most important thing would seem to be bold inspiring leadership at an international level! OK, that aside we then need to work with the rapidly developing nations, especially China and India to see how they can be encouraged to rationalise their energy use and carbon emission – this might, for instance mean helping them with nuclear power generation technology!! Countries at an earlier stage of development will need to be encouraged to approach energy generation and use in an environmentally friendly way from the outset. It may be that increased trade and increased use of civil aviation may be necessary to achieve some of these things.

In global terms, what we do in the UK will probably be most important as example setting and we should not shy away from this. However, we need to be clear why we are doing what we are doing. Education therefore will be a significant part of the strategy. If people do not understand why they are being asked to pay more tax, or more for their cars or airline transport, it will simply result in resentment and entrenchment, not least because people will see little global change for many years as a result of their efforts.

I was so depressed when I heard the reply to the question of why the 5th runway at Heathrow was still going ahead. Apparently the growth in air traffic has already been taken into consideration when looking at meeting the emmissions target. Aaaarrghhhhh. How about actually trying to exceed the target rather than just meeting it? Where are all the women bloggers btw?

In respoense to Rob at reply no 22 above.

In a recent video but Al Gore he says he became interested in the plight of the environment after listening to one of his lecturers. This lecturer whose opinion I respect, is one of the ones who hasn't been convinced of the argument for or against.

I would ask you to think for yourself and not follow like sheep. According to the latest thinking Cattle emit more green house gases than cars, sensibly we haven't slaughtered them all

Looking at all these comments makes me ask whether it would not be reasonable to use a little respect, as used to be the case i.e. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor or Mr Blair and Mr Brown, in the same way as one would address a friend or neighbour.
If we look at the facts more action is being taken in the UK than by most governments.There is no reason for the bad tempered posturing being stirred up by those with political interests. The tax position in such a large long drawn-out matter will have to be generally acceptable even if unpalatable.