Don't Duck Climate Change Agenda in Queen's Speech
The Queen's Speech will be absolutely critical in determining the Government's agenda on climate change. We are now in the last chance saloon and our fear is that we will get a climate change bill heavy on spin but light on substance.
According to Friends of the Earth, the UK produces 2.3% of the world's CO2, from just 1% of the world's population. The UK must take its responsibilities seriously and harness the technology and resources at our disposal to stop climate change.
What we need is a Climate Change Bill with teeth, which has measurable annual targets. These must be met if we're going to tackle the climate change catastrophe facing our planet.
The sort of targets we will be looking to be included in the proposed legislation will include:
- Annual reductions in carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to 3% per annum
- Sectoral targets for industry
- Tougher energy efficiency targets
- Significant increase in renewable energy sources in electricity generation and in transport
posted by John at 1:05 PM
9 Comments:
As a Greenpeace supporter, this is great stuff.
I've also worked with you on Heathrow Watch - what plans have you got for the aviation industry? Do you support tax on aviation fuel?
Those proposals are just hot air (which is obviously pretty bad in this context). Targets without an effective system of enfocing them are nonsense. If you want to address this issue properly, which you ought to if you intend to be prime minister, it might be appropriate to come up with suggestions that have more depth of thought. The four proposals you have put forward could have been dreamt up by a GCSE student in the course of a geography lesson. To address the issue properly a paradigm shift, and the means of executing such a shift, are required. At present it looks as though you are lamely nodding in the direction of climate change to show you are 'concerned' about the issue.
full marks for posting silly anonymous comments John - this is what blogging is all about! I note that our anonymous commentator doesn't actually offer any constructive proposals themselves...
Well, I think we're going to have to face the nuclear power question at some stage, so I might as well kick-off. It's a tricky one but the pros and cons need to be brought into the climate change vs waste handling debate.
If Peak Oil is now, coupled with the end game of Iraq inevitably (debate?) leading to an oil shortage to some degree, perhaps we should be pushing for electricity for cars and heating, derived from energy from nuclear power stations. Funding for serious research in handling nuclear waste is of prime importance.
Is it time for compromise, or has someone an alternative?
nuclear power creates radiation from mining to waste, helps provide raw material for nuclear weapons and demands an authoritarian society.
conservation, renewables, a socialist economy that reduces waste and meets human needs...
Good luck on getting on the ballot, at least in the Party I am a member of socialists can stand in internal elections and mount a challenge
Hi Derek, thanks for the debate.
The mining doesn't actually create radiation, but gathers it in one place. So I agree that policing of its containment would require an authoritarian approach.
But we must consider how to drive our power stations if there's little oil or gas and climate change may rule out coal.
With today's technology, renewables just won't be enough.
NPM - I don't think you're right. Just look what's been achieved in Woking:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1516677,00.html
"The effect was dramatic. Between 1991/92 and 2003/04, the town enjoyed a 48.6% saving in energy consumption. Carbon dioxide emissions were down 77.4%, while nitrogen oxide emissions fell by 76.6% and sulphur dioxide levels were reduced by 90.9%. Water consumption was cut by 43.8%, and the council saved more than £5.4m on water bills over the period - a reduction of 31.3%."
No one has mentioned clean coal technology either . . .
Will, Have taken a look at the Woking initiative, looks good, but I don't think that air conditioning the tube system should be high on our priorities.
And I still see this as short term thinking. It's up to us to consider our grandchildren now. With coal being another fossil fuel, it will have a short future so will any government think it worthwhile to invest in clean coal?
I'm not a fan of nuclear, was totally anti up till about 3 years ago, but unless we can find a way to store photo-voltaic electricity, I see no other option.
nuclear waste -remember that?
it will still be a toxic problemn so how the Blairties can even consider nuclear power is beyond me; it seems they are picking and choosing with green issues, as I've said elsewhere on this side. You can't be green without being ethical as well which means using fairtrade, organic, recyled and sustainsable ways of making thing/doing things as appropriate.
Post a Comment
<< Home