Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Cost of going green – higher energy bills and 1.7m more in fuel poverty

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 02 December 2008
THE steps needed to achieve ambitious climate change targets will push 1.7 million more people in the UK into fuel poverty, a report has revealed.
The Committee on Climate Change, chaired by Lord Turner, has advised the government to reduce emissions by 42 per cent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels – the amount necessary to reduce damaging greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will contai
n the threat of climate change.

However, the impact on the price of electricity and gas of measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions will increase the number of fuel-poor households by 1.7 million in 2022, the committee's report warned. The cost of taking them out of fuel poverty would be £500 million a year.

Greg Clark, the shadow energy and climate change secretary, argued that government energy policy over the past ten years had made the task of cutting emissions more "urgent and disruptive" than it need have been.

"In this context I am deeply concerned by the committee's assessment that up to 1.7 million households could be pushed into fuel poverty by the impact of the proposed carbon budgets," he said.

He added that British customers were already paying some of the highest fuel bills in Europe because the government had failed to prepare for the decline in North Sea oil and gas, and British homes were among the least energy-efficient.

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said concerns over fuel poverty must not be used as an excuse not to go ahead with efforts to reduce emissions.

"We cannot ignore fuel poverty. We have had far too much for the past decade and now it cannot be used as an excuse to not do the right thing," he said.

Mr McLaren described the report as "unprecedented" and a "big step in the right direction".

However, he urged the Scottish Government to go even further and aim to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2020.

The Committee on Climate Change, an independent advisory body set up under the Climate Change Act, urged the government to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases in the UK by at least 34 per cent relative to 1990 levels.

This should be increased to 42 per cent once a global deal to reduce emissions is achieved, it said in its report Building a Low-Carbon Economy.

In order to achieve the targets, Lord Turner's committee advised improving energy efficiency in buildings and industry, using carbon capture and storage technology in power stations, developing electric cars and public transport and using cleaner forms of electricity production such as renewable and nuclear power.

It recommended all fossil fuel power stations should be using carbon capture and storage technology by the early 2020s. The committee said the reductions could be achieved without harming the UK's economy, and at a cost of less than 1 per cent of GDP in 2020.

Lord Turner said: "Climate change poses a grave threat to human welfare, the environment and the economy. We need to act now."

The report came ahead of the Scottish Climate Change Bill, which is expected on Thursday.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Rufus T. Firefly,

01/12/2008 22:43:17
Nuclear power is the way to go, if we want a dependable power supply whilst at the same time reducing CO2 emissions.

Of course Salmond is dead against it for political reasons and consequently does not care if we all end up living in caves using candles for light.
2

Rufus T. Firefly,

01/12/2008 23:50:41
Gordon Brown has slashed the Conservative lead in the polls to just 1 percentage point, according to a survey in the Daily Telegraph

It looks like the NatZ dream of a Tory win at the next election may well be far from reality.
3

truthsleuth,

02/12/2008 00:25:23
So once more we have yet another organisation (quango) composed of those who use aviation for travel the most Telling the government Electricoty should go up in price for the masses so that they may continue to fly with abandon.

The better way would be to impose serious carbonn taxes on aviation and use the revenue to subsidise electricity for the poor.

4

Wardog™,

02/12/2008 00:32:37

"...Nuclear power is the way to go, if we want a dependable power supply whilst at the same time reducing CO2 emissions....."

Can you detail how you will be dealing with the waste from these new nuclear power stations?

5

Rufus T. Firefly,

02/12/2008 00:34:07
Wardog, do what we do with it at the moment.
6

,

02/12/2008 00:34:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Wardog™,

02/12/2008 01:31:16
5 Rufus T. Firefly, 02/12/2008 00:34:07

Your advocating the expansion of it, you tell us

8

Wardog™,

02/12/2008 01:33:36

100,000's of Job Losses
UK worst placed to recover from deep recession
Unprecedented National Debt
Forecasts from the treasury that no-one believes in
Unprecedented levels of personal debt & bankruptcy
Our banks nationalised or taken over
Threat of deep recession with possible reflation


I can't wait for Gordon's £500M tax cut on Scottish frontline services, I'm sure all of the vulnerable and two years can't either.,.....

Brown announces £1 Billion for cavity wall insulation despite only 20% of scots having homes that can receive cavity insulation and over 70% being defined as fuel poor. Meanwhile we have the over zealous neo-con nuclear hawks advocating a nuclear future with no idea of what we will do with the waste and how much it will cost to clean up...... welcome to Browns' Britain.......

Fuel Poverty isn't even the half of it
9

,

02/12/2008 02:00:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Guga II,

Rockall 02/12/2008 05:05:11
#2 Roofarse Blowfly.

If you are so sure that the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party are going to win the next general election, put your money where your (large) mouth is. How much are you willing to bet on it?
11

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 02/12/2008 05:25:33
Brown can put all the nuclear power stations he wants in the south east of england, and with the prevailing wind down there will take all of the outfall over to France.Thank god he has made one decision that we SCOTS agree with. INDEPENDENCE CANNOT COME SOON ENOUGH
12

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 02/12/2008 06:49:35
Here we are in one of the most prolonged cold spells for a while and these global warming bozo's are working out ways to tax us even more in creating targets that are impossible to achieve and will have no effect on the climate in any case.
Michael Crichton must be turning in his grave - his book "A state of Fear" has come to pass sooner than he predicted. Meanwhile Al Gore is laughing all the way to his Swiss bank account.
I wonder how many old people dying the likes of Duncan McLaren consider to be acceptable so that their buddies in the wind industry can boost their profits.
13

SouthernSkye,

02/12/2008 07:32:32
I don't care what power generating source is used as long as it is affordable. At the moment that is the main requirement. Develop "green" technology by all means and, when it is affordable and efficient, introduce it at a rapid rate. Until then let's just ensure everyone can afford to heat and eat this winter and for those to come.
14

,

02/12/2008 07:52:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Unimpressed one,

02/12/2008 07:57:59
Carbon capture and storage - how is storing liquified CO2 underground for all eternity less 'dangerous' than the storage of radioactive waste? Typical green hypocrisy. They condemn the use of nuclear power based on this claim but condone CCS passing on this 'deadly' legacy for all future generations.

Turkeys voting for Christmas. As for McLaren, the man's a complete imbecile. He says nothing that makes any sense. He rants the green mantras but I doubt if he has any science qualifications. Yet still the Johnstone Press scurry to get his comments on engineering and science matters.
16

Brad Arnold,

St Louis Park 02/12/2008 08:12:43
"Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system — and that of our response — make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will (work). What is needed is a fundamental cure." --Dr James Lovelock

A European Union target to limit warming of the planet to no more than 2 degrees Celsius may not be technically achievable, the International Energy Agency said in a report to be published next week. "Even leaving aside any debate about the political feasibility ... it is uncertain whether the scale of the transformation envisaged is even technically achievable, as the scenario assumes broad development of technologies that have not yet been proven," said the IEA's World Energy Outlook. --Reuters, 6 November 2008

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008
17

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 02/12/2008 08:16:35
Westminster putting pressure on Salmond with regards building nuclear power stations as the only viable energy option is a VERY telling statement.

What it effectively means is that the Labour government DO NOT believe that renewables are a viable option but more of an expensive hobby. So the last few years of pressure on Holyrood to build as many renewable energy outlets by the London Labour administration was built on the basis of lies, NIMBY-ism and EU quota filling.

Salmond has played a master stroke by rejecting Nuclear as an option and forcing Westminsters hand. In turn, Westminster have responded as predicted by clearing telling us renewables don't work sufficiently well enough and Scotlands grand scheme of so much % of renewables is not a clever option.

They would be right which is why more coal fired stations will be built instead and England will have to despoil thier own landscape instead of Scotlands to meet quota and capacity.
18

11+failed,

the pans 02/12/2008 08:20:25
A few thousand dying of hypothermia is a price worth paying in the view green brigade just so long as it gives them control over how we live our lives.
19

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 02/12/2008 08:50:42
It's time this CO2 industry was wound up along with its unrealistic "targets" which the proponents will not be around to be accountable for. Not that Duncan McLaren is accountable for anything except uttering green codswallop from time to time and the press eagerly laps up all he has to say on the subject. What about some comments from genuinely qualified energy engineers who might have some interesting points of view to put across?

Also the illogical rejection of nuclear power by Salmond leaves us with one option less, but with a rather uncertain future in terms of windmills which might or might not provide enough baseline power and if they dont what covers that situation? Coal-fired - definitely - this is a huge resource which the Greens are desperate to stop because it wrecks their CO2 predictions. My contention is - so what? You're stuffed anyway due to the output from China and India dwarfing anything we can produce.

However apparently according to McLaren, it really doesn't matter whether 1.7 million are in fuel poverty as a result because his merry men will have met their targets and we can retire safely to our caves with no heat and light while they jet around the globe for conferences and their masters treat them as the dupes they are.
20

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 09:01:46

#sm753,
02/12/2008 08:10:31

As per usual you come charging in posting písh whilst reading from you ZaNuLab crib sheet.

Please only post when you have something germane to say or is it your strategy to divert the thread and trash informed discussion.

You focus on carbon capture, which you reduce to sticking something down a hole where it will seep out or from carbonic acid, which is bad.

Carbon capture is more than one technology and includes soil capture by way of changing farming practices. Every little helps.

Some practices such as algal capture, or sea transformation are showing great promise and look promising to be tested in realtime environments at the point of CO2 production; ie coal fired power stations.

Your proclivity for nuclear generation and steadfast refusal to even try to understand the alternatives, beyond your Party brief, tell me that you are a babbelfish. You understand nowt and just transcribe what you are given.

Either that or you are a Norwegian Blue.

Please try to engage brain before your twelve fingers.

Oh, and by the way Duncan McLaren has three different degrees, two at Masters level.

*
University of Cambridge

MBA, Business Adminstration, 2001 — 2002
*
University of London

MSc, Rural Resources and Environmental Policy, 1986 — 1987

Activities and Societies:
Editor of student magazine 'Wye Bother'

*
University of Cambridge

BA, Geography, 1983 — 1986

I hold no candle for him as he is clearly a career environmentalist, a profession I distrust as equally as the plague of career politicians which infest the Labour benches.
21

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 02/12/2008 09:14:39
"Such technologies exist and more are being developed. Encourage them!" - Rulesbutnotrulers

Absolutely so vote SNP since they are the ONLY party who are forging ahead with this type of development in any meanigful way.
22

11+failed,

the pans 02/12/2008 09:19:05
22Fred Quimby
"Oh, and by the way Duncan McLaren has three different degrees, two at Masters level."
Just as "15 Unimpressed one" says "but I doubt if he has any science qualifications". He nearly qualifies as a professional student. Geography for those whose mathematics isn't up to science or engineering and their language skills are poor. As for "Environmental Policy" that is a Mickey Mouse degree.
23

yockel,

02/12/2008 09:35:06
Since we are on about green stuff can any one explain the logic of this?
My only heat source is the three 60 watt bulbs in the light fitting, the bulbs must have been there 10 years at least. Being super insulated the room needs no other heat source. In order to go green I am meant to remove these bulbs and fit three 11 watt energy saving bulbs. The total materials used in their construction weigh three to four times as much, in addition to the glass and metal of the old bulbs the bases of the new ones are shrouded with plastic, full of electronic components and the tube coated with toxic rare-earth phosphors. Not only do they cost an arm and a leg, you are lucky if you get one year's use out of them despite the claimed 8000 hours or whatever. To compensate for the lack of heat I will need to instal a heater which if I am lucky may only be 500 watts. Is the EU nuts or something?
24

Thomas1,

// 02/12/2008 09:39:24
UK coal is on it's way to rescue us,
with open cast mines about twenty meters from your lovely rose bed.
25

subrosa,

02/12/2008 09:41:14
Having now listened to this argument for some years, I've come to the conclusion that 'being green' is just another way of being fleeced - by government or companies wishing to flog their green products.

This year I installed a new boiler (costing thousands) and I doubt if I'll live long enough to get a return on it.

So, other than these expensive lightbulbs, I'm spending no more.

The energy mess of the UK is down to the indecision and incompetence of Westminster. At least the Scottish government have been tackling the problem. Perhaps they're not coming up with the result some would like, but it is being discussed seriously.

And of course, Alex Salmond doesn't have a brother who works for a French nuclear business.


26

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 09:46:40

#sm753,
02/12/2008 09:26:56

There is loads of time to build one or two clean coal plants. They exist.

I'll give you a clue from my contacts.

Dong!
27

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 09:49:24
#24
11+failed,
the pans 02/12/2008 09:19:05

Where did I say he was Einstein?

Is someone with a Doctorate in History qualified to hold a high post in international economics and finance?

Do you think such a person would be numerate?
28

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 09:52:33
#26
yockel,
02/12/2008 09:35:06

You are so off the wall you could be Chick Murray in disguise
29

Unimpressed one,

02/12/2008 09:52:58
#22, I knew it! The guy is a complete ignoramus, with no real qualifications in anything of significance. Asking his opinion on power generaton is a bit like asking Amy Winehouse what are thoughts are on new PC operating systems.

We will get coal-fired and nuclear stations. The government is just leading the greens a merry dance to keep them quiet until the time comes. Hopefully by then they will all be arrested and charged under the anti-terrorism act when they protest at their construction.
30

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 09:53:15
Why are the idiot politicians following this stupid, ridiculous "King Canute" idea that "carbon emissions" are going to change the weather?

It is about time we got rid of these morons and got some politicians into power who will put the "green" beardies in their place---in other words, ignore them.
31

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 09:55:09
#33
Unimpressed one,
02/12/2008 09:52:58

I am an ignoramus or Duncan McLaren is?

Be careful now......
32

Hugh Roscombe,

02/12/2008 09:58:43
Stick a solar panel on your roof.
33

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 09:58:46
#33:

"...is a bit like asking Amy Winehouse what are thoughts are on new PC operating systems."

I was under the impression that Amy knew a great deal on the subject of PC operating systems. In fact, I was thinking of giving her a ring to find out her take on a problem I am having with SELinux on Fedora 10.

...in the same way that I am about to ask His Divine Holiness Duncan McLaren whether I should drive my car to work tomorrow morning...
34

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 10:02:39
#36
Hugh Roscombe,
02/12/2008 09:58:43

I believe that you are bald and could legitimately claim your pate to be a solar panel for a sex machine?
35

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 10:05:07
#36
Hugh Roscombe,
02/12/2008 09:58:43



"Stick a solar panel on your roof."
.

Solar panels and Greenock don't work together
36

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 02/12/2008 10:10:55
Listen up. There is NO evidence of any unnatural or accelerated 'global warming'. even the green fascists are forced to admit that the entire globe has been cooling for the last decade. Carbon dioxide is NOT the cause of warming - it is present at only 400 parts per million in our atmosphere - that is ONE part in 10,000. It is rare. It is necessary. It is NOT a pollutant.

The AGW fanatics have openly admitted that 96% of all CO2 emissions come from natural sources - nothing to do with human activity. - so any 'carbon taxes' can only affect far, far less than 1% of the 'problem' - which isn't a problem to begin with.

This is a struggle for power and the right to tax the air you breathe. The social -communists didn't just disappear when the USSSR collapsed - they just morphed into Green Fascists. They want to control EVERY aspect of your life and they would seriously like to exterminate much of humanity to acheive their ideal 'balanced planet'. Wake up. Fascism is here - it may be just crawling at present but it will be running soon. Arresting opposition MPs is just the beginning; jailing people for 'bin crimes' is here; soon they will be jailing 'carbon criminals'. These people are fascists.
37

Hugh Roscombe,

02/12/2008 10:11:04
"Solar panels and Greenock don't work together"

You mean the neds would smash them?



38

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 10:11:32
#31

02/12/2008 09:50:00

Dear Empire Loyalist sm753,


"Oh, as for Fred Quimby - you had more credibility producing Tom & Jerry."

Was that an attempt at a joke?

Oh dear, really must do better than that. I am going to disconnect your access to Google.

I sign myself Fred Quimby as I have to deal with two dimensional characters like you.

Now go away and get another McPravda Centre script or switch threads to something where you could be able to think for yourself before posting.

You are an oxygen thief, which is equivalent to a net CO2 producer.

Away and get sequestrated.
39

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 10:12:52
#42
Hugh Roscombe,
02/12/2008 10:11:04

Sam would sell them for home hootch distillation

40

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 02/12/2008 10:15:11
Fuel poverty is system made. We do not have to have any citizens fuel poor, that should not be used as an excuse for jettisoning a commitment to renewables and non nuclear energy production. The two issues should not be conflated.

if you look at initiatives within the social housing sector you can see that fuel use can be reduced dramatically by overcladding systems, amongst other things, which also has the added benefit of reducing condensation, the spores from which are a serious health risk, especially to young and old.

There are many many ways we can reduce fuel poverty, in addition to using less energy, and improving health overall. These benefits should be rolled out to the private sector, we shouldn't stop at central heating systems.

In addition, projects like these would provide employment and investment to offset the recession.
41

Hugh Roscombe,

02/12/2008 10:18:18
Rufus T. Firefly,

"Gordon Brown has slashed the Conservative lead in the polls to just 1 percentage point"

This was a Comres poll - the same bunch that said that Glasgow East was going to be a walkover for labour.
Previous polls put Tories ahead by between 11 and 15 points.
LOL.
42

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 02/12/2008 10:22:28
36 There are dozens of housing associations and local authorities doing just that. The scope for using renewable energy in domestic settings is vast. The scaremongering nonsense from the pro nuclear lobby is rubbish.
43

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 10:28:00
#40 SM 753

Well Googled or did you phone a friend?

There are deep mines, under the Forth which might be suitable for CCS after suitable pre-treatment. Leakage may be a problem and I am sure that tests are being made to this effect.

By the way, have you ever thought about how much CO2 is being produced in the UK by the beer and whisky industries not to mention the manifoldly greater production by the baking industry?

CO2 is but one buggeration gas, methane is by far more noxious.

Feed cows methane sequestrants, convert the slurry to biogas and then generate local electricity. CO2 is still produced but much better than methane?

It is all a big circle and concentration of a finite resource like nuclear, with its "what the fúck do we do with kit and shít afterwards" problems smack of short term profiteering and a "well, some other generation will sort it out later" disregard for our space ship Earth?

But then again, there is no undue influence on the Great Leader Josef Broon; no family connections with EDF, no ex ministers and lobbyists whispering in his ear.



44

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 10:28:48
#49
sm753,
02/12/2008 10:24:26

Dong!
45

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 02/12/2008 10:42:20
No comment on the Green story ?

The Metro had a feature saying there was a meeting pencilled in betweeen Jack Straw, Jacquie Smith, Harriet Harman, and the Speaker to try and work their way out of this mess. It was leaked to the Tories who demanded that they be allowed to attend.

Looks like Labour are in every deeper doo doo with this one, especially as we now know there was no breach of national security.
46

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 10:54:41
#51
sm753,
02/12/2008 10:28:19

Cut and paste with no understanding.

We are finished, you are not worthy.
47

Alan B,

02/12/2008 10:59:58
We need to move to greener cars to cut emmissions.

Problem is labour have discredited any environemental policy by using it as an excuse to raise tax.

A minimum standard should be brought in for cars say 40mpg and move up to 50mpg after a yr or 2. Some small cars (polo) can do over 70mpg.

With a min of 50mpg car companies would be encourage to look and bring in hybrid cars as away of boosting car performance while meeting the criteria.

The government could also help by reducing vat on hybrid cars to 10% while other cars set at 20%. This would encourage hybrid to make them mass market. With mass market cost would be quickly cut and technological improvements made.

Improvement in battery performance of hybrid would encourage the electric car. Plug in hybrids would mean that petrol type fuel would become a backup fuel as most journeys would be under the battery range limit.

Moving away from the petrol economy would also mean not throwing money at idiot regimes in the middle east.
48

Alan B,

02/12/2008 11:01:37
Labour have been dreadful when it came to the basics of reducing carbon dioxide. One policy they should have brought in quickly is improved housing standards.
49

The Strategist,

02/12/2008 11:10:19
Burn coal... catch the CO2, add hydrogen and make methanol which is a high octane fuel. Overall cuts in CO2 emisssions broadly 50%. Job done..
50

Vlad Tepes,

Targoviste 02/12/2008 11:10:25
Have you noticed that the anti-environmental mob have belatedly realised that denial has long ceased to be a credible position? Instead they are moving onto frenzied, vitriolic personal abuse of "beardy-weirdy, lentil-knitting, tree-hugging, eco-nazi, green fascists".
Perhaps they should look up the word fascist, in an extended definition they may find their names.
Nice hysterically imbalanced headline btw...
51

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/12/2008 11:10:49
The energy debate is so polarised - on the one hand we have the pro-nuclear lobby on the other we have the renewable nuts.

The truth is that both have their environmental problems that neither will acknowledge.

Instead of throwing money at renewables as Holyrood is doing, or at nuclear as Westminster is doing, I'd like to see the government:

* invest in energy conservation
* increase research into nuclear fusion
* increase research into energy storage - in particular the storage of solar energy
* increase research into cleaner energy production - both nuclear fission and coal/gas-powered

What also is required is a comprehensive review of energy policy that not only examines all sources of energy - nothing should be ruled out or in - but also examines energy use.
52

John S,

02/12/2008 11:14:36
Carbon Capture and Storage
What is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) ?
http://tinyurl.com/5gtayt
53

Alan B,

02/12/2008 11:57:57
#The Federalist

I think the political problem is labour at westminster have paid lip service to the environmental issues and then used it as a tax raising mechanism without really addressing the underlying issues. It is one of the difficulties i have with labour you never know when they are serious about an issue, using it for spin or using it for tax.

They claimed success in meeting Kyoto but that was done because of the short sighted tory policy of dash for gas and then failed to meet the slightly tougher eu targets.

"invest in energy conservation"

The simplest thing would be to have ensured that houses were built to higher standards as heating is one of the main issues.

While the eu messed about with Kyoto they did nothing to fundementally change the underlying issues. It is only now that they are pushing standards for light bulbs. We should have electricity usage standards for all electrical equipment. Move away from stand by tvs etc.

I think the move to renewables is a good one but will take time as the uk is starting from such a low base. Governments have thrown money at nuclear and coal but not renewables until recently. It is by developing tidal etc that big differences can be made.

But again the government have done little with regard to cars. Japanese car companies seem to have been the best followed by some US consumers in the promotion of hybric vehicles.

We should have had a government that would have insisted on min mpg that would have prevented the uptake of 4 by 4s over the last decade. Better to do something preventative than after something has become mainstream.
54

Unimpressed one,

02/12/2008 12:12:06
"We should have electricity usage standards for all electrical equipment. Move away from stand by tvs etc."

Do you actually know what you're talking about?
55

Unimpressed one,

02/12/2008 12:19:00
#58, You mean like describing climate change skeptics as 'denialists'? The greens are king when it comes to ad hominem remarks.
56

Hugh Roscombe,

02/12/2008 12:19:14
62

In Europe, unused appliances in standby mode account for 10 percent of total energy use.
57

Alan B,

02/12/2008 12:36:08
#62 Unimpressed one

Rather than just trying to throw an insult could you be constructive and explain what your problem with the comment was.

If you want to do something about CO2 emmissions that means either means either reducing the energy used or not producing the energy from CO2 sources or at reduced CO2 levels. That is pretty obvious.

For me we should do something with regard to a long term move to reduced petrol consumption. By min standards rather than tax. eg 40mpg pushed up over time and also encouraging other technologies into the mass market like hybrids.

For homes energy consumption takes the form of heat which is generally from gas and electricity for lighting and consumer electrical products tvs, fridges, charging mobiles, hifis etc.

While it makes sense to move away from CO2 released by intensive production methods of electricity generation as the cost is more expensive and has other factors it also makes sense not to endlessly keep increasing our consumption.

It makes sense then if our lighting is not as energy intensive. This is being slowly introduced. It also makes sense if things like tvs and hifis, dvds etc were not consuming energy when not used and were energy efficient when in use. Fridges and washing machines etc should meet high energy efficiency standards.

As #Hugh points out standby accounts for a fair amount of energy consumption. As such it would make sense if more thought could be put into resolving this. Possibilities could be to turn of the tv from standby after 10mins of non use. Appart from few with mobility problems that really is not an issue. Or better have a small solor panel that generates enough energy to allow the tv to be switched on by the remote (similar to the calculators solar panel that were in cheap calcs about 30yrs ago).




58

bluehead,

edinburgh 02/12/2008 12:48:04
the cost of going green will cause the people be blue with the cold,I suggest that the greeno's take a long walk of a short pier,do these nut cases not realise that the people have enough to get on with at this moment in time, this labour goverment are a disease on this country,they should be recycled into the Atlantic ocean.they never seem happy unless they are making life miserable for the people ot this country
what a pile of rubbish!!
59

eyeswide,

just outside lala land 02/12/2008 12:50:31
At the current rate of increase CO2 will not double its current level until 2255.

What is the problem?

The temperature went up by .57C during the last century (it has gone down a bit this) so even if doubling CO2 had a linear effect (which it doesn't) on global temps we should reach this "high" of an extra 1.14C in about 250 years if we are lucky. By lucky I mean, we don't get massive cooling by whatever means.

Luckily (and I mean that most sincerely folks) our known coal supplies are roughly the same. Oil for far longer. At current rate of increase.

Welcome to the new bubble. 30 years too early. Designed to fleece you, your children AND your grandchildren.

Guilt pays.
60

Hugh Roscombe,

02/12/2008 12:50:39
Subsidies? Wasn't British energy bailed out?
61

Dorian,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 12:53:10
Have a look at Craig Venters talk here, it will blow you away. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/craig_venter_is_on_the_verge_of_creating_synthetic_life.html

He talks about genetics alot, but it is the part about fuel that is of interest. It's a long talk to be patient, it is worth it.
62

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 12:56:35
Alan B:

Progress is already being made with the fuel consumption of vehicles.

Compare a 4.2 Jag XJ6 of 1980s vintage with the modern 2.7 Diesel V6 Jag.

Asside from the fact that I think the correct place for a diesel engine is either in a truck or powering a fishing boat, the modern car has better performance, higher power output and drastically increased fuel economy.

You would struggle to get 20mpg out of the old Jag, but the new one (as Clarkson proved) will do 1000 miles on an 18.5 gallon tank of diesel, despite driving it properly rather than like grand-dad. I reckon that in about 10 years time, you'll see proper performance cars like the XJR returning high-30/low-40 mpg figures. There's no need to legislate everyone into an under-powered Euro-box. Technology will progress in any case.

Actually, I'd like to see cars taxed on the basis of the fact that you own one. In other words, a flat £100 for road tax regardless of the type of car.
63

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/12/2008 13:00:32
#61 "I think the move to renewables is a good one but will take time as the uk is starting from such a low base. Governments have thrown money at nuclear and coal but not renewables until recently. It is by developing tidal etc that big differences can be made."

The problem with the whole renewables debate is the basic assumption that they are "greener". The truth is that they too have environmental effects that need to be considered. For example, look at the environmental issues associated with tidal power plants.

Tidal power plants reduce tidal flow in their immediate vicinity. This can severely disrupt ecosystems which depend on being periodically covered by water; resulting changes in fisheries or shellfish beds may result in adverse economic effects. Tidal flow elsewhere along the coast increases - thus casing it's own environmental concerns.

(to be continued)
64

Alan B,

02/12/2008 13:00:33
#sm753

And what has that to do with all I have said. You seem to be getting more silly by the day.

What is the problem with developing tidal etc as part of a energy policy over a period of time as the technology develops?

My problems are:
1)labour have used the environment issue to raise tax and spin and turned people like me sceptical when governments talk about doing anything for the environment. Part of the larger problem that labour have wrecked faith for many in the workings and trust of government.
2)my priority would be cars. I would approach that by min standards and encouraging other technologies away from petrol. Most likely hybrid and then plug in hybrid and electric. I dislike the approach just tax and then if tomorrow we could switch of petrol cars we find that government would have close to a 40billion tax black hole.
3)on domestic energy i would like:
a)better new build standards particularly round heating
b)higher consumer electric standards round energy usage for light bulbs (now being down by the eu) and tvs etc.
c)and for electricity consumption for the uk am happy with a mix of nuclear and renewables. If the renewable target is 50% then i would like the nuclear target of sat 35% with more flexible energy sources making up the difference.

However for scotland i would like the choice of nuclear devolved. And if the country does not want nuclear then do not have it. Labour has uturned on the issue and as such the political parties in scotland are quite evenly split. Although McConnel the last labour leader in scotland was reportedly against it.

I have come round to the conclusion from being quite pro nuclear along with renewables as some mix that scotland would be better avoiding nuclear and concentrating on renewables as the cost of 2 potentially expensive technologies is too great. From an industry and economic point of view concentrating one thing and niching yourself is a better idea.

From a renewable point of view i see
65

Alan B,

02/12/2008 13:00:56
...
From a renewable point of view i see tidal as part of that solution and make up. You also make the mistake of just talking about the uk and not scotland as scotland and englands electricity policy does not have to be the same as we may be coming at it from different perspectives.







66

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 13:01:03
#71:

You have a point there. It seems that the propagandists are in the habit of adding a '0' whenever it suits them. Another example is:-

30% of crashes are caused by excess speed (in reality this is 3%)
67

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 02/12/2008 13:02:29
New Poll tories lead cut to one point....you see evry body loves Gordon and Alistair
68

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/12/2008 13:03:06
(#73 continued)

Other renewables have their own associated problems.

* Hydroelectric - apart from the fact that reservoirs often cover agriculturally productive, alluvial bottomland, dams alter the existing plant and animal species in the ecosystem. Also within the reservoirs, fluctuations of water levels alter shorelines and cause downstream erosion. Beyond the reservoirs downstream water quality is also reduced affecting both flaura and fauna.

* Wind Power - apart from associated electromagnetic intereference and noise issues, the main environmental criticism is that they reduce the aethetic quality of the area they are located. Because they rely on a high regular windspeed (20kph+) the best locations are often rural sites - often existing beauty spots because of their location.

* Photovoltaics - the one major environmental problem of photovolataics is the use of toxic chemicals such as cadmium sulfide and gallium arsenide in their manufacture.

* Solar Thermal Conversion - because this relies on the use of concentrated saline ponds the risk of salt leeching into the soil is increased. Also many such ponds need toxic chemicals to prevent algae growth.

* Wave energy - apart from being possible navigation hazards, the biggest environmental concern is the actual cabling to tranfer power to shore.

To pretend as some do in the green lobby that these methods of energy production are somehow cleaner than tradional power production is dishonest in the extreme.

Instead I take the view that ANY new power plant needs to be justified in terms of demand and a full environmental audit should be carried out on its possible impact on the ecosystem.
69

Professor MacBonacord,

02/12/2008 13:07:50
Im all for reducing carbon emissions and going green but at the same time i do not and hope not people especially the old are suffering as a result of turning of heating etc.
70

Hugh Roscombe,

02/12/2008 13:09:11
sm753

You're right - but just this time mind. Better figures below.

For the year 2005 a study estimated that approximately €3.7 billion installed products in the EU feature standby/off mode, leading to electricity consumption in standby/off mode of close to 50 TWh, corresponding to electricity costs of about €7 billion, and 20 million tons of CO2 emissions.

It is expected that electricity consumption in standby/off mode will stand at around 50 TWh per year in 2020 (an amount comparable to the total electricity consumption of Greece or Portugal).

(ps - I leave mine on)
71

Hugh Roscombe,

02/12/2008 13:09:59
Above from Europa Press Release.
72

Alan B,

02/12/2008 13:11:17
#Alternative

I am aware car performance has improved. I am also against as i think you are the government using cars and the environmental issue to raise tax.

For me moving away from petrol etc is not just about CO2 emmissions but also about not throwing money at your eejit regimes in the middle east.

The question I would be posing is the best way to move industry away from so much dependency on petrol or other oil based fuels while not being anti car. I like the car.

You either do nothing and hope it happens or you try to create an environment that will encourage industry to move in that direction. Industry does respond to governments direction. I want to avoid using taxation to discourage use particulary when it is just a new tax.

As such regulating to put minimum standards in place would be my approach. If workable having different min standards for small, medium and large cars maybe useful.

The problem with moving say to hybrids is getting them mainstream so that they improve and cost falls.

The Tesla electric sports car in the states apparently out performs the best of the peformance petrol sports cars and is within their price bracket.

I know you support hydrogen but i think that technology might be abit further off but i would support any technology that moves away from oil reliance over a period of time say a decade.

73

Hugh Roscombe,

02/12/2008 13:12:45
BTW - my 10% mentioned above comes from MEMO/05/218 Brussels, 22 June 2005:-

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/218&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

It states, "Do you know how much energy is used by electronic equipment left on stand-by? Up to 10% of household consumption – about €15b per year – is being wasted in this way. The Commission promotes voluntary standards to reduce stand-by consumption in European households which will yield potential savings of up to 30 billion kWh of electricity"
74

Alan B,

02/12/2008 13:14:56
#The Federalist

The problem i would have with your post is when we use terms like green. As it can mean different things to different people.

The real discussion is about not emitting so much CO2 and other green house gasses into the atmosphere.

75

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 02/12/2008 13:17:39
#14 Vote UKIP

Is this poster brain-damaged or just plain STUPID?

And what did he "told us so"? In his cretinous condition he probably can't even remember.

One very basic way to reduce heating costs is to insulate your homes or apartments and detect the places where draft are and take immediate steps to plug up those heat-losing gaps.

You can hire a firm to do that for you or get a neighbour or local expert to do it for free or at nominal cost.

In the end it may save you hundreds of pounds in heating costs per season.

And what in the hell is the UKIP? Is it a figment of that fool's "mind" or a sorry, sorry organisation with a membership of 5 or 10 at the most?
76

Alan B,

02/12/2008 13:21:14
#Alternative

Surely it makes sense to reduce electricity consumption by making consumer electrics more energy efficient and if stand by tv account for 7/8% of domestic electricity usage that is a fair wack.

If you deal with that and other areas like more energy efficient fridges, lighting, washing machines, stand bys for hifis and dvds etc then you could reduce the amount of electrcity we need by a similar amount. if it is about 8% for tv stand by you would think we could easily move to reduce electricity consumption and hence production for domestic usage by about 20%.

Other than if you do not want to do anything about co2 emmissions, that surely does make sense as it is a pretty painless approach.
77

Alan B,

02/12/2008 13:26:57
#Alternative

"30% of crashes are caused by excess speed (in reality this is 3%)"

While I have not idea of stats in this area speed itself in isolation is not the problem. But excessive speed based on driving skills, road conditions, other driver errors, vechicle quality does play a part. If some makes an error at speed or if you are travelling at speed it is harder to avoid an acident.

Other accidents say like over taking on say the A9 is speed related. So it would depend if you blame speed, speeding or the overtaking in classification.
78

Professor MacBonacord,

02/12/2008 13:30:44
#86

Over taking on minor roads is a main contributor to road deaths.
79

Andrah,

Embrugh 02/12/2008 13:36:47
#41Tweedmouth. Excellent post. Fully agree.

To believe that Man can alter this fact, whether negatively or positively, suggests extreme naivety or incredible pomposity. Climate does indeed change, and has done, over the life of Earth. Many scientists, geologists and historians dispute the causes of climate change - ( remember, climate has always changed, witness the growing of vines all over Britain pre 12th Century, in Roman times and before),yet the UN and those scientists paid by the Global Warming industry will not heed any argument, to the extent that some people are called "deniers" by those of feeble mind or left-wing persuasion.

The Sun effects climate change - Man, as Canute took pains to demonstrate, is puny against Nature.

Doom-mongers seem to revel in the possibility of MMGW, akin to a new religion. The global warming alarmists, the UN and the IPCC, and many politicians have wallowed in the possibility of MMGW, and, like Lemmings have all been quick to blame virtually any "weather" on climate change, and now forge ahead with the propaganda and the " beyond argument" line so beloved of dictators and Communists.

"Water Melon" politics - green exterior but deep red inside.
80

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 13:37:11
#77
Raymond Thomas Brooke,
Leven England 02/12/2008 13:02:29
New Poll tories lead cut to one point....you see every body loves Gordon and Alistair



Dear Rupert

Just wait till another poll comes out this afternoon!


Thank you Doink
81

Professor MacBonacord,

02/12/2008 13:52:16
Can i now post
82

Scunnert,

02/12/2008 16:40:37
Scotland's impact on global climate change is insignificant. This doesn't mean we should do nothing.
83

Alan B,

02/12/2008 16:57:49
#Scunnert

Every individual's impact on climate change is insignificant. But together the world needs to act primarily the western devoloped world who can afford it and can develop the technologies to deal with the problem with out inflicting pain on the economy.
84

Scunnert,

02/12/2008 17:13:13
92 Alan B:

Emerging technologies is an opportunity Scotland should embrace. After all we invented the modern world - now we should fix it.
85

Alan B,

02/12/2008 17:16:00
#Scunnert

Agree
86

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 17:23:37
Alan B:

I am totally in agreement with not wasting energy. Whether that involves not leaving the TV on standby or getting round to fixing that leaky washer on the hot tap. I also tend not to fill the kettle unless I actually need a whole kettle full of boiling water. Those kinds of things are no-brainers and I fully support the beardies when they wish to encourage people to save energy by simply using their brains.

What I will not accept however is this notion that man is somehow destroying the world. In the last 40 years we have made phenomenal advances in the areas of industrial pollution, domestic appliance energy consumption and vehicle emissions---more than was ever thought possible in the 60s. If progress continues to be made at this rate then in another 40 years time we will be having even less impact on the environment than we are now. It will happen. There is no need to force the issue by setting "targets". That is just counter-productive.

Regarding the percentages, the point I was trying to make was that they alter the figures to suit their arguments. That's all. I don't want to get embroiled in a debate about "speed kills" (not on this thread anyway). I was just using that lie as an example of how the powers that be will twist their figures in order to justify their latest tax/restriction/ban/legislation/knee-jerk reaction.
87

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 17:27:13
#86:

Alan B

"Other accidents say like over taking on say the A9 is speed related. So it would depend if you blame speed, speeding or the overtaking in classification."

I blame general incompetance in most cases.
88

moral___superiority_,

02/12/2008 17:32:21
Go Green
89

Fred Quimby,

02/12/2008 17:38:05
I feel seik!

will that do?
90

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 17:38:55
#81:

Alan B:

When someone comes up with a car with the kind of performance/luxury/handling that I am used to at a similar price, that runs on a fuel other than petrol, I will buy it.

There is not need for tax penalties at all. The industry is moving that way in any case. We already have the Toyota Prius---although that is far from a perfect solution and frankly is not my kind of car in any case.

If you look at the research work being done now by companies like BMW, Mercedes and General Motors, you will see the general pattern of movement away from oil. It will take time.

Eventually, conventional petrol and diesel engined cars will not be available, so people who are buying a new car will HAVE to buy one powered by alternative fuel. Garages will HAVE to stock the fuel for them as well.

This raft of "green" taxes is just there so that the loony lefties can penalise people NOW, before they have the option to embrace the new technology, even if they want to. No doubt once petrol and diesel are things of the past, Duncan McLaren and his band of merry beardy buffoons will have some stupid objection about the fact that there is too much water in the world or something, which will be engineered to halt progress and cause inconvenience to all.

Of course, governments will embrace all this rubbish as it will justify yet more tax.
91

David MacVicar,

Web 02/12/2008 18:17:41
"the impact on the price of electricity and gas of measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions will increase..."

What a load of Brit dung.

Its a tale of 2 Regions.
Prices are Going up in Britain because britain needs to import a lot more of everything, especially more Oil and gas and reduce emissions. Britain in this context = South Britatin PRIMARILY

Because South Britain is Energy Poor.
North Brtain PAYS for their imports
South Britain wants North Britain to apply a UK wide Nuclear policy and Energy poicy to plug South Britains problems.


Scotland none of the gain yet share all of the pain.
* Exports 6 times more gas than we use.
* Exports Electricity to Ireland and England with plans to export to Europe.
* Interconnecters being UPGRADED to handle more power transfer!
* UK Grid charges Scotland more for production - Unlevel plmaying field.
* Does not need Nuclear, though we could introduce some, but certainly NOT to Satisfy a South Britain Energy Policy, which is what is proposed.


* Scottish Consumer pays for Southern imports.
* Scotland gets no gain for exports.
Keep paying or devolve respobsibility. END OF STORY.

Let the unrelevant Unionist drivel begin...
92

Euan,

Edinburgh 02/12/2008 18:44:17
#109 Fuel Head

Totally agree with the whole 'green' tax thing.

The more and more governments keep going on about how they will reach their, quite frankly unmeasurable, 'emissions targets', the more and more people are going to be taxed - all to make the politicians think they are actually doing something to 'save the planet',

The 'green' hoax is now so ingrained into society and governments' mentalities, that it is now a political tool, designed to gain as many votes as possible.

Yet here in the UK, we are being forced to pay ridiculous taxes in order to use a motor vehicle, being hounded by the green brigade for using vehicles with large engines, being told to take the bus, turn our tv's off, yet at the same time the UK Governments are committing themselves to coal-fired power stations for the foreseeable future.

I'm all for making things more efficient and trying to use less fuel and energy, but for governments to constantly contradict themselves on their policies, to constantly try and prise more money out of ordinary citizens for the sole purpose of showing to the rest of the world that 'green' policies are what they're about, is wrong.

As Fuel Head says, the motor industry together with many other industries and heavy industries, have made huge strides in efficiency are will continue to do so.

What is NOT necessary, it to penalize consumers and normal, everyday people with a constant plethora of 'green' taxes which do nothing for the environment and only rob peoples' pockets for no reason other than to give politicians a warm, feel-good feeling within themselves..






93

Geomac 1,

Scotland 02/12/2008 20:03:06
When will our politicians return to the real world and start to address the future energy strategy for the country - not based on ideology but on pragmatism and cost effectiveness.
First step is to stop taking for granted that the theory of global warming is a FACT - it is NOT!! CO2 is a necessary gas in the greater scheme of things - it is NOT a nasty. Without CO2 we'd all be dead!
Based on a spurious theory we now have politicians telling us that specific quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere are disastrous - what baloney. It is nothing but a long discredited theory that man alone is responsible for climate change/global warming and for that theory to be extrapolated to equate CO2 levels to earth tenmperatures is a travesty and a nonsense.
Time to get real and stop all this garbage - all this does is to give politicians an excuse for doing nothing and talking drivel.
94

Scunnert,

02/12/2008 20:35:16
Some folks don't want to believe that climate change is real. They prefer to think it a hoax. They should consider the possibility that they are wrong and the consequences of taking no action.
95

Scunnert,

02/12/2008 21:52:20
106 The Spook in Leith

Too many cars. Too many monster houses to heat. Too many gadgets to power up. Built in obsolescence requiring replacing electronic and white goods every few years. It's madness. I gave up my car five years ago - don't miss it. Now I either walk or take a bus.
96

Rufus T. Obsessive,

02/12/2008 23:25:24
I am a sad lonely person, who lingers on here waiting for new stories
97

Rufus T. Obsessive,

02/12/2008 23:40:22
I just linger
98

Rufus T. Obsessive,

02/12/2008 23:41:46
I just linger
99

Rufus T. Obsessive,

02/12/2008 23:44:46
gosh
100

Rufus T. Obsessive,

02/12/2008 23:45:27
trading standards
101

Rufus T. Obsessive,

03/12/2008 00:00:23
I just report all this to trading standards
102

,

03/12/2008 00:02:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
103

Sanny,

03/12/2008 11:31:49
To all those who have been misled by the bad science of Al Gore and the IPCC -PLEASE READ THIS PAPER: We are being lied to!

Proved: There is no climate crisis

Major paper shows CO2’s effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000%

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement
of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface
temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –
“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said: “I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolon
104

Sanny,

03/12/2008 11:34:46
CONTINUED
I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate
models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –
? The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;

? CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

? Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;

? The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;

? The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;

? “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;

? Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;

? The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

? It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;

? Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;

? In
105

Sanny,

03/12/2008 11:35:54
? Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
CONTINUED: -
? In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Contact: Robert Ferguson, Science and Public Policy Institute www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
202-288-5699 bferguson@sppinstitute.org
106

Richard Lionheart,

04/12/2008 09:47:24
More money into Al Gores’ coffers then!
107

Richard Lionheart,

04/12/2008 10:00:46
Co2, Such a bad thing! Without it we would have no food crops the plant life would die and all those fluffy polar bears would die! Oh and the rain forests would be killed off too.

Too many people have been taken in by Al Gore’s over dramatisation of environmental Armageddon. Nigel Lawson’s book “An appeal to reason” gives a much more balanced view of what is really at stake.

But, if I were Gordon Brown I’d be pushing Climate Change too. It certainly would take the focus off the mess being made elsewhere. The plus point for him is that he won’t be around by 2050 to carry the can for the mess his Climate policy has made.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.