Loading... Please wait...

Action on climate change

Gordon Brown - copyright SilverfishThe Prime Minister has called for “vision and determination” in the global challenge of tackling climate change.

In a speech at a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) event in London, Gordon Brown outlined the Labour Government’s policies to ensure Britain meets its climate change goals.

In particular the PM outlined the landmark Climate Change Bill, the Energy Bill and the Planning Bill – all of which will contribute to cutting our carbon emissions.

You can read the Prime Minister’s speech in full below and discuss how we can ensure Britain leads the way in the challenge of climate change.

Read Gordon Brown's biography page and watch more speeches from the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's speech: 

I am privileged to be here at this event hosted by WWF today.

For over forty years WWF has led the way to a greater public understanding of the beauty and diversity of the natural world we inhabit:
• your campaigns have saved habitats and species across the globe;
• your practical work has shown how nature conservation can also provide sustainable livelihoods for local communities;
• and you are now in the forefront of the global campaign against climate change. 
 
Indeed, from long before it became fashionable, you have reminded us of our obligations ---- and you have demanded of us that we take care of the earth which belongs not just to us but to future generations.
 
I am speaking to you today just two weeks before the UN Climate Conference begins in Bali.
 
The task sounds specific - to launch negotiations leading to a post-2012 global agreement on climate change. 

But our mission is, in truth, historic and world changing ---- to build, over the next fifty years and beyond, a global low carbon economy. 

And it is not overdramatic to say that the character and course of the coming century will be set by how we measure up to this challenge.
 
In the years after 1945 the world came together to rebuild broken economies and fractured societies - billions of new investment mobilised to redevelop post-war Europe.
 
And at the heart of that endeavour was the Marshall Plan that transferred three per cent of national income from America to Europe --- a collaborative effort under which countries cooperated for common goals.

At that time, leaders had to fight against short-sightedness, inertia and the dominance of old backward looking dogmas.

But they met the challenge because they understood that prosperity is indivisible, that to be sustained it has to be shared, and that meeting the costs and bearing the burdens were the only guarantee of prosperity and security. 
 
Today we face another fateful choice.
 
Building a low carbon global economy demands a worldwide commitment on a comparable financial scale, requiring billions of pounds of new investment in clean energy. 

The climate change crisis is the product of many generations, but overcoming it must be the great project of this generation.
 
And it will have to involve not just Europe and America but the entire community of nations.

So once again leaders will have to demonstrate vision and determination --- because, just as in 1945, we must understand that it is only by rising to the challenge of change that we can guarantee our prosperity and security, now and in the future.
 
The latest report from the International Energy Agency makes clear the scale of that challenge: that if we continue with ‘business as usual’, by 2030:
• world energy demand will be 50 per cent higher than today with 80 per cent of this for fossil fuels;
• the average oil price will remain over 60 dollars a barrel with most oil and gas coming from unstable regions;
• and global carbon dioxide emissions will have risen by almost 60 per cent.
 
And the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that such trends, unabated, would mean temperature increases by the end of this century of up to 4 degrees centigrade and sea levels rising by up to 60 centimetres ---- with pervasive and prolonged consequences for ecosystems, food and water supplies and human settlements. 
 
Such a catastrophe would also be the most terrible injustice. For while the richest countries have caused climate change, it is the poorest who are already suffering its worst effects.
 
As the Stern Report shows, the economic cost of this kind of climate change - the change which the world is currently headed for - would be comparable to the economic effects of a Great Depression combined with world war. 
 
But what the Stern Report also demonstrated is that - momentous as the challenge is - meeting it is both technologically feasible and economically rational; the costs of urgent action are far less than the costs of delay; and the earlier we act, the easier and less expensive our task will be.
 
So the role of government is transformed. Once government’s objectives were economic growth and social cohesion. Now they are prosperity, fairness and environmental care.
 
And it falls to this generation to show that we can meet and master the challenge of combining economic growth and environmental stewardship with social justice. 
 
The issue is not, as some would have it: can we afford to do more.
 
The now undeniable reality is that we cannot afford to accept any less.
 
Our starting point is Bali - where we will not finish a new international agreement within two weeks but begin a two-year negotiation to achieve it.  And every country's concerns and proposals must be on the table. 
 
For our part, Britain is today publishing a statement setting out the principles which we believe should underpin a post-2012 framework.  And our vision has one overriding aim:  holding the rise in global average temperature to no more than 2 degrees centigrade.  This requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak within the next ten to fifteen years ----- and be cut at least by half by 2050. And it requires us to build a global low carbon economy ---- ensuring that the 22 trillion dollars of new energy investment worldwide over the next 20 years contributes more to the solutions to global warming - energy efficiency and low carbon generation - than to its causes.
 
A global carbon market is at the heart of our approach - not the old way of rigid regulation but the modern way: harnessing the power of the market to set a global price for carbon, rewarding the most efficient and innovative action to tackle climate change.
 
Built on the foundation of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, with the City of London its centre, the global carbon market is already worth 20 billion euros a year and could be worth twenty times that by 2030. 

And that is why we want the post-2012 international agreement to include binding emissions caps for all developed countries - for only hard caps can create the framework necessary for a global carbon market to flourish.
 
A global carbon market will also facilitate a transfer of technology and resources so that developing countries can bypass the polluting 20th century path to industrialisation and move straight to the clean energy technologies of a new era.

Through the Clean Development Mechanism, significant finance is already being provided to these countries - and the flows could be much larger in the future. 
 
And building on the World Bank-led Clean Energy Investment Framework and Britain’s £800 million pound Environmental Transformation Fund, I want to work with the US, Japan and other G8 and European donors to create a new multilateral funding framework through which we can channel our assistance to help the developing world shift to lower carbon growth, reduce emissions from deforestation and adapt to climate change.
 
And as we help developing countries so Europe has already shown its leadership --- demonstrating its ambition to become the first major low carbon economy.

The decisions made by the EU Spring Council:
• to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, or 30 per cent as part of an international agreement;
• to commit to 20 per cent renewable energy and a 20 per cent increase in energy efficiency by 2020;
have committed our continent to a low carbon trajectory, demonstrating how Europe can provide the platform for Britain to achieve its aims, nationally and internationally. And I pay tribute to President Barroso, Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy for their leadership.
 
The EU view is that to stand a chance of keeping the temperature increase below the 2 degrees centigrade target - and as part of a multilateral agreement - emissions from industrialised countries like Britain should be cut by 60 to 80 per cent by 2050. 
 
In Britain we now produce some 654 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent annually. 
 
By 2050 we need to be producing between just 155 and 310 million tonnes – less than half as much in an economy which will be two and a half times its present size.

So within four decades each pound of GDP needs to produce just one sixth to one twelfth of the CO2 equivalent it does today.
 
This means a significant change in our energy economy.  Indeed I believe it will require no less than a fourth technological revolution. In the past the steam engine, the internal combustion engine and the microprocessor transformed not just technology but the way society was organised and the way people lived.   Now we are about to embark on a comparable technological transformation - to low carbon energy and energy efficiency.  
 
This represents an immense challenge for Britain. But it is an even bigger opportunity.
 
Globally, the overall added value of the low carbon energy sector could be as high as 3 trillion dollars per year worldwide by 2050, and it could employ more than 25 million people.  If Britain maintains its share of this growth there could be over a million people employed in our environmental industries within the next two decades.

So building our own low carbon economy offers us the chance to create thousands of new British businesses, hundreds of thousands of new British jobs and a vast new export market in which Britain can be a world leader. 

And this will also be essential to our energy security, as we move from a period where most of our energy has come from domestic sources to one where, on present trends, by 2020 up to 80 per cent could come from overseas. 
 
The foundation of our approach is providing clear, credible and long-term signals.
 
First, our Climate Change Bill will place a statutory cap on Britain’s emissions ---- with five-year carbon budgets set on the advice of the new independent climate change committee providing certainty for investors, business and consumers. And I thank Hilary Benn – and before him David Miliband - for their work on the Bill.

Every new policy will be examined for its impact on carbon emissions - not just those which reduce emissions, but those which increase them.  And where emissions rise in one sector, we will have to achieve corresponding falls in another. 

The legislation will enact our target of achieving a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 60 per cent by 2050 through domestic and international action ---- but the evidence now suggests that, as part of an international agreement, developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by up to 80 per cent.  So we will put this evidence to the committee on climate change and ask it to advise us, as it begins to consider the first three five-year budgets, on whether our own domestic target should be tightened up to 80 per cent. 

The Climate Change Bill will also put into statute our interim target for 2020 of a 26 to 32 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which means cutting greenhouse gas emissions overall by between 32 and 37 per cent - Britain’s contribution to the European target and to the new international climate change agreement we seek. 
 
We have already led the debate within the EU to ensure that aviation emissions are included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme as soon as possible.  We will now also ask the climate change committee to examine whether and how international aviation emissions could be included in the UK’s carbon budgets.
 
And because we know that alongside measures to reduce carbon emissions we must do more to deal with the effects of climate change, there will be new powers in the Climate Change Bill to require public bodies to assess, where necessary, the risks of climate change and set out what action they need to take in response.
 
Our second imperative is a major improvement in our energy efficiency. 

At present, a third of all the oil, coal and gas we buy is wasted - a result of still relying on the technologies, and the mindset, of the past.

This must change. 
 
Take cars. 
 
As the report I commissioned from Professor Julia King shows, there are exciting new vehicle technologies just over the horizon: commercial hybrid engines, and soon plug-in hybrids, fully electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells. 
 
And Professor King believes that a halving of average emissions by 2030 - to around 80 grammes per kilometre - is feasible. 
 
The EU is looking to introduce a new mandatory efficiency standard of 130 grammes by 2012. 

Britain will now press for a second, ambitious EU target of 100 grammes per kilometre by 2020, or no later than 2025. 
 
At the same time, we must do more to improve energy efficiency in our homes.
 
By 2016, all new houses will have to be zero carbon. 
Building regulations, already requiring 40 per cent higher efficiency than 2002, will be tightened. 
New Energy Performance Certificates will provide householders with an energy rating for their home.
And within a decade our aim is that every householder able to do so fits loft or cavity wall insulation, installs low energy light bulbs, and uses low-energy consumer goods. 
 
For consumer goods, including those with wasteful standby facilities, we are working with retailers to raise energy efficiency standards.  And we have already secured agreement that standard high energy light bulbs will start to be phased out from next year, and removed totally by 2011 - the first European country to do so.  
 
Since 2001 government schemes have insulated 2 million homes.  But over the next three years - as a result of new carbon emission reduction targets for energy companies - I can announce that 5 million more homes will benefit from discounted or free loft and cavity wall insulation, and another 3 million from discounted or free low energy light bulbs and energy efficient appliances. 
 
For every household - over the next decade - there will be the offer of a smart meter that will allow two way communication between the supplier and customer - giving more accurate bills and making it easier for people to generate their own energy through microgeneration and sell it onto the grid. 
 
And to help people move towards a greener lifestyle, we are today announcing a new one-stop Green Homes service --- a single telephone line, a user-friendly website and a network of advice centres in every region to:
• provide easy access to an energy audit and the full range of discounted and free services available;
• and give advice not only on energy efficiency but on microgeneration, water efficiency, recycling and greener travel.
 
House to house visits in fifty of our poorest areas will provide energy efficiency offers door to door.  And for every householder who gets an energy performance certificate with an 'F' or 'G' rating for a home being sold or bought, the green homes service will make an offer of discounted or free help with energy efficiency measures. 
 
This represents the biggest improvement in home energy efficiency in our history -
• one household in three offered help over the next three years to cut their carbon footprint;
• with potential savings of over £100 per year for a typical householder. 
 
Businesses too must play their part in improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions. 
 
Here the basic policy framework is already in place. 
 
We have the climate change levy on business energy use. 
 
And climate change agreements with the main sectors have delivered savings of 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide so far.

Major carbon emitters, accounting for almost half of Britain’s emissions, are now required to achieve emission reductions through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme - and we are working in Europe to strengthen the scheme so that tighter caps for longer periods are set in future phases.
 
From 2010 we will also introduce carbon trading in the UK for large but less energy-intensive businesses - offices, supermarkets, commerce and public sector organisations - saving at least another 4.2 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
 
One of the biggest contributors to our greenhouse gas emissions is landfilled waste. 
 
And all over the country campaigns are forming to get rid of disposable plastic bags - one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste.
 
Every year in Britain, over 13 billion single-use carrier bags are distributed - over 10 bags a week for every household.
 
In partnership with Government the supermarkets have already committed to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags by 25 per cent over the next year.
 
But I believe we can go further.  Indeed, I am convinced that we can eliminate single-use disposable bags altogether in favour of long-lasting and more sustainable alternatives.

So the Government will convene a forum of the supermarkets, the British Retail Consortium and other interested groups to urgently assess together how, and how quickly, this reduction can be achieved.

The third imperative for a low carbon future is a major drive to decarbonise our energy sources.
 
For two hundred years the British economy has run largely on fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas supplying us with the plentiful and secure energy that powered our progress and our prosperity.
 
But over the coming decades we must move from a largely fossil fuel based economy to an economy primarily powered by low carbon energy:
• renewables
• potentially nuclear - subject to the outcome of our consultation
• and the emerging technology of carbon capture and storage.
 
At present around 9 per cent of total energy in Britain is from low carbon sources: 2 per cent from renewables, and 7.5 per cent from nuclear. 
 
In order to meet our global greenhouse gas targets, by 2050 virtually all energy for electricity and most of the energy used for heating, cooling and transport in our country will have to come from low carbon sources.
 
And because we need to replace a third of our electricity generating capacity in the next twenty years and most of the new plants will still be operating in 2050, we must start this technological transformation now.
 
In our Energy White Paper the Government set out its preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to give energy companies the option of building new nuclear power stations, as most of our existing nuclear stations will be decommissioned in the next twenty years. 
 
Having concluded the full public consultation we held on this issue, we are considering the results and will announce our decision in the new year. 
 
I also believe that carbon capture and storage will be a vital new technology in reducing carbon emissions around the world. 
 
For many countries - including the US, China and India - coal is still the cheapest, most readily available form of energy and will remain so for decades to come.  So if we are to have any chance of meeting our global climate goals, we must find ways of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide it produces. 
 
I can announce today that we are launching a competition to build in Britain one of the world's first commercial CCS coal projects, demonstrating the full chain of CO2 capture, transport and storage. 

And tomorrow in Beijing, the Chinese Government and the EU - led by the UK - will begin Phase 1 of the Near Zero Emission Coal Initiative, which will explore options for demonstrating CCS with coal fired power generation in China -- the first study of its kind in a country that is building two coal fired power stations a week.

We will also consider whether, if we can show that carbon capture and storage is technologically and commercially viable, it should be made mandatory in some form for all new British fossil fuel plants.
 
The two per cent of our total energy that now comes from renewables is much less than in most other European countries.

In the Energy White Paper we announced plans to triple the amount of electricity from renewables by 2015.  But as the urgency of tackling climate change and achieving energy security increases, the case for more reliance on renewables has become more compelling.
 
That is why at the European Council in March Britain led the way to an agreement that by 2020 one fifth of all Europe’s energy should come from renewables - a near three-fold increase. 
 
The UK worked hard to get agreement to this target. 
And let me make it absolutely clear: we are completely committed to meeting our share.
 
The European Commission will come forward with their proposals for how the overall target is to be divided between Member States in January, with a final decision expected in early 2009 --- so we do not yet know what the UK’s contribution will be.  But it is clear that over the next decade and beyond Britain will need to raise very significantly the proportion of our energy from renewable sources.
 
We must start planning for this now.
And let me tell the country: it will be a huge challenge. 
 
It will be for the private sector to make the necessary investment but the government will do more to remove the planning and other obstacles that are currently holding renewables back.
 
We already plan to increase the capacity of offshore windfarms from less than half a gigawatt now to 8 gigawatts. The Secretary of State for Business will announce shortly details of our proposals to allow a further significant expansion.
 
To remove the barriers here I have asked the Secretaries of State for Defence, Business and Transport to step up their efforts, in cooperation with industry and the regulators, to identify and test technical solutions to the potential difficulties windfarms pose to air traffic and defence radar.
Under the Planning Bill, we will publish a National Policy Statement on the appropriate balance between enabling wind farms and protecting shipping. 
And I have asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that our new Marine Bill responds sensitively to the environmental issues posed by offshore wind farm development.
 
We will also explore the potential for major new investment in energy from wave and tidal sources. 

We have already announced a study of the feasibility of generating tidal energy from the River Severn: this alone could provide 5 per cent of Britain’s electricity needs.
 
And the Secretary for Business is announcing today that we will be including tidal lagoons and barrages below one gigawatt capacity within the scope of the Renewables Obligation - potentially benefiting projects such as those being proposed for Rhyl and Swansea Bay. 
 
Meeting our renewables target will also require:
• more onshore wind farms - sited in the right places;
• greater use of energy derived from waste;
• a major expansion of energy from biomass;
• and greater use of microgeneration, including, as costs come down, more solar power.
 
I recognise that windfarms and other new energy installations are often seen as a burden to the local communities living near them, while their benefits go to society at large.  So I want to explore how local communities can themselves benefit from the economic opportunities they create. 
 
Meeting our target will also require greater use of renewables to heat our homes and buildings.  So we will introduce new measures to bring forward renewable heat, with a call for evidence in January prior to a full consultation.  
 
And as we expand renewable heat we will need to ensure that, wherever feasible and economic, we generate electricity and heat together.  So instead of all our energy being generated remotely, more can be supplied locally - making more efficient use of our energy resources. 
 
Finally, in transport, we will do more to stimulate sustainable forms and sources of biofuels. 
 
I take extremely seriously concerns about the impact of biofuels on deforestation, precious habitats and on food security.  The UK is working to ensure a European sustainability standard is introduced as soon as possible --- and we will not support an increase in biofuels over current target levels until an effective standard is in place.
 
Increasing our renewable energy sources in all these ways will require national purpose and a shared national endeavour. 
 
And we will also need to ensure that the costs for businesses and for consumers remain affordable.

So we will launch a consultation next year, inviting a serious national debate about how we are to achieve our targets.
 
And we will publish our full Renewable Energy Strategy the following spring - once the EU Directive is passed and we know what the UK’s contribution will be. 
 
In the meantime we will legislate, as promised, in our Energy Bill to reform the Renewables Obligation to bring forward newer technologies.  And we will introduce in our Planning Bill new measures to speed up the planning system for major infrastructure projects, whilst ensuring the public are properly consulted. 

Let me say that all three pieces of legislation - the Climate Change Bill, the Energy Bill and the Planning Bill - are vital to this endeavour.  You cannot will the end if you do not also will the means. 
 
This is what meeting our carbon goals means in practice - not just talking about it or making vague promises about the future but taking concrete action - nationally, in Europe and internationally - to achieve them.
 
When I said at the launch of the Stern Review that we were going to build a low carbon economy in the UK, I meant it. 
 
I know this means facing up to the hard choices and taking tough decisions. That it means governing, not gimmickry.  And that is what we will do.
 
And I want the British economy, British firms and everyone in Britain to benefit from this new low carbon future. 
 
Last year I asked the Secretaries of State for Environment and Business to chair a commission of experts on how the UK could benefit economically from the new environmental agenda. 
 
Today we are publishing the Commission's report which estimates that - from water treatment to global carbon markets - the UK’s environmental industries are already worth more than £25 billion and employ some 400,000 people.
 
It shows that if tackling climate change represents the greatest of challenges for the world, it is also the greatest of opportunities for Britain.  And just as in each of the three previous technological revolutions Britain played a leading role, we now have the opportunity to play a leading role in taking the world towards a low carbon future. 

It is an opportunity I want this country to seize: a greener Britain where a new green economy provides greater prosperity and high quality jobs even as it protects the environment and provides a better quality of life for all.
 
So the Government will step up support for British companies as they look to develop and supply the goods and services of this new technological revolution.
 
I can tell you today that the first programmes of the £1 billion pound public-private Energy Technologies Institute will be focused on R&D in offshore wind, wave and tidal stream energy. And the new £370 million pound domestic Environmental Transformation Fund will help bring these technologies to market. 
 
To ensure that we have the skills and the expertise for the environmental industries of the future, we will work with employers to create apprenticeship and ‘Train to Gain’ places in environmental industries and bring forward plans for a national skills academy in that sector.
 
And early next year the Government will convene a summit with the Regional Development Agencies, energy companies, universities, manufacturers, environmental service providers and NGOs to explore how we can maximise the economic opportunities of a low carbon future.

We have seen the excellent work being done to engage their members by groups like yourselves, the National Trust, Oxfam, Christian Aid, the Women’s Institute and the RSPB.
 
We have all been impressed by the efforts of companies like B&Q, Marks and Spencer, Sky and Tesco who are empowering their customers to act as part of the ‘We’re In This Together’ campaign. 
 
But I believe there is even greater scope for business and the voluntary sector to work with Government to mobilise individuals to take action.  So I have asked Fiona Reynolds of the National Trust and Ian Cheshire of B&Q to recommend how this might be achieved.
 
And I am determined too that the Government will meet its responsibilities and maintain its global leadership. 

All of us - government, business, civil society and individuals - have a part to play. 

Working apart we will surely fail. But working together I have no doubt that this is a challenge to which the human spirit, and our powers of ingenuity and enterprise, will rise.

Want to comment?


Neil Message left at 07:06 pm, Tue 29th Jan 2008
I believe in climate change. I don't however believe a word from the government about climate change. Labour are using climate change as a revenue generator. e.g. Road tax cost is determined on the emissions of a vehicle. This is road tax we are talking here which should be used to maintain Britains roads. Now it doesn't matter what emissions your car is putting out, an enviromentally friendly car wears out a road just as much as a non enviromentally friendly car so both should pay tax equally.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Paul Message left at 07:45 pm, Sat 5th Apr 2008
Climate change awareness is a good thing, but raising the car tax on family cars by 100% is not going to stop the rich burning fuel in their big cars, and will only tax average families off the road by hitting their cash flow too hard.Thus wiping out any other good done for families by this administration in one swipe.If this is labours way of winning the family vote in two years then the policy team needs changing for people who live in the real world.This massive tax hike needs amending quickly so as not to hit families with family sized cars heavily. Shame on The Chauncellor, and Shame on Labour...families will remember such treatment on polling day.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Neil Message left at 07:10 pm, Tue 29th Jan 2008
Furthermore, heavy goods vehicles on our roads will undoubtedly cause more damage than a normal family car. Considering the amount of foreign heavy goods vehicles that are also on our roads who don't pay a penny to our road tax.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
daniel Message left at 12:09 am, Wed 12th Mar 2008
I agree..If you happen to drive through Austria as a visitor or just passing through, any time, one is required to purchase a road tax sticker. I feel as I am paying TOO much taxes as it is..go tax foreign HGV drivers (good deterrant) AND `key workers` with foreign number plates living over here.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Peter  Message left at 07:13 pm, Thu 17th Jan 2008
How does building a third runway at Heathrow help?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Andrew Paul Message left at 06:37 pm, Fri 21st Dec 2007
It would have saved a few tears and some clandestine secret meetings if the Bali Conference had looked at already published plans to make the world near-zero in CO2 emissions, rather than attempt to make targets that are too small to be worthwhile in the first place. I am sure that I was not the only campaigner attempting to contact the ‘movers and shakers.’ Our problem is that we do not have the slush funds of the oil and nuclear industries. A Plan to Make All Countries Near-Zero Carbon Emitters Within Ten Years Lighting can be zero rated by converting all Power Stations to Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators, the heating can be near-zero rated by installing Starlite coatings, that prevents heat escaping, on the walls and ceilings of all premises, and by having electrical heating from renewable sources we cut heating CO2 emissions to zero. Transport can be made near-zero in terms of carbon emissions by ensuring that all vehicles use carbon zero electricity, instead of petrol. We still have the problem of transport by aeroplane and ship having to use fossil fuels. However, their carbon footprints can be at least halved by having their fuels mixed with water using an ultrasonic dibber. Finally, the power needed for energy can be made entirely of carbon free electricity. New ways of making industry work using electricity instead of the gas that they are used to will be needed, but these are not insurmountable problems given that the Governments of the world have ten years to achieve the target. Please sign my petition to cut CO2 Emissions by 30% at: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/CO2Reduction/
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
treborc Message left at 03:23 pm, Mon 7th Jan 2008
I looked you up on the internet and your buxton what ever, your a raving lunatic mate, right off the scale.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Syd Message left at 05:09 pm, Fri 14th Dec 2007
Treborc is correct, the sun causes global warming. Since the earth was created has been cooling down and warming up, and this will always happen til the end of out dear planets history. The human contribution to it is minute in global terms, but politicions being politicions see a golden goose here, and a way to extract taxes which has nothing to do with global warming. If the Government were really concerned about global warming they would be giving out huge grants for the public to install solar panels, erect mini wind turbines, grants to purchase electric and hybrid cars etc, but that will never happen because deep down they know that this global warming is a natural phenomenon and they see a way to con the electorate.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
John Message left at 08:04 pm, Tue 11th Dec 2007
At present, I feel this government is using the environment to get more and more tax out of us. Directly and indirectly. I will believe the government is serious about the environment when it does some of the following. Limits the engine size of cars that can be sold in the UK. (Who really needs a car with an engine bigger than say 1.6 litre?) Ban the sale of large 4x4's to anyone that cannot prove a need for such a vehicle. Insists on speed limiters being fitted to all new cars and vans sold in the UK (would cut pollution and improve road safety) Insist that all new cars sold in the uk are dual fuel and therefore able to run on a more environmentally friendly fuels such as LPG and SVO as well as petrol or diesel (All petrol and diesel cars can run on these environmentally friendlier alternatives with a few very minor and inexpensive tweaks) Invests some of the billions it takes from us in fuel tax each year on improving the road network because lets face it, outside of the capital public transport is awful and is never going to cope with any increased use even with massive investment. Get traffic flowing you reduce pollution as moving cars are far more efficient than stationary ones. Why wont the government do any of these common sense things that would drastically improve the environment at minimal cost to government and members of the public? Well they would upset oil companies and car manufacturers because they would hit their profits and they would lose billions in fuel tax and speed tax (sorry speeding tickets) revenues. Come on Mr. Brown. Prove me wrong. Take some decisive action that will really have an impact. Thats take action not say you will take action. The environment needs to be a higher priority than profit or tax income and I do not believe there is a government in this world that will ever treat it as such. Instead they will continue the policy of unfair taxes that affect the poorest in society and put children and families into poverty.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
john  Message left at 06:11 pm, Fri 7th Dec 2007
please invite me onto prime ministers questions
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
treborc Message left at 01:12 am, Sat 8th Dec 2007
Why so you can tell them the sun is causing all the pollution bad weather and heating up the earth. I think we have enough idiots already on that program.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
ben Message left at 06:00 pm, Fri 7th Dec 2007
im watching mate. they might delete your posts but theyre harming themselves as their actions back up what your talking about. LONG LIVE FREE SPEACH
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
robert Message left at 09:40 am, Fri 7th Dec 2007
surely people can see that all this global warming carry on is labours way of diverting the british public from the real issues at hand, such as crime,immigration,overcharged prices on petrols and taxes etc etc from day one gordon brown has messed it up when will he put his hands up and say ok i should go????
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
treborc Message left at 08:13 am, Fri 7th Dec 2007
Thats it I've had enough who the f * c k are your family. your another who's lost the thread on here.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 01:00 am, Sun 2nd Dec 2007
This is a message for every one and a warning. Their is an old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intention. And this seems true of whats happening in the country and the world today. Social ideals are great but they come with totalitarianism, loss of liberty and freedom, propaganda, the rewrighting of history, lies, the removal of democracy,the removal of constitutions that protect you from government tyranny the police state. This hole environmental movement and this so called war on terror the invisible enermy is just a cooked up load of rubbish to extract money from your pockets and terrify us into giving up liberty don't be fooled any more.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
treborc Message left at 10:28 am, Sun 2nd Dec 2007
Yes I agree, roland it's whole not hole, your writing is great but you always make the same spelling mistake, and spoils your article, the whole of something, hole is what we dig in the ground. Rob
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 01:30 pm, Sun 2nd Dec 2007
Yeh i'm a bit dyslexic it's the bain of my life. But we've all got our cross to bare. I hope i haven't offended any one by using the term 'cross'.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
treborc Message left at 11:08 pm, Sun 2nd Dec 2007
You cannot use that on me, I am Dyslexic in both Letters and numbers, I also had a stroke after my accident, get a spell checker.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Threeday Message left at 07:27 pm, Thu 29th Nov 2007
The idea that political parties should be funded by the taxpayer has been put forward again in the face of the latest party funding scandal. This is a farcical suggestion paramount to rewarding these offensive practices with a bonus from the taxpayer. How do I start a movement against this?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Treborc Message left at 11:23 pm, Thu 29th Nov 2007
The cross party discussions broke up last week, so this happens good or what planed you bet your life. Labour has lost 4 million members and the Unions are asking members do you want to give to Labour sorry New Labour and we are saying no. So where is Labour going to get funding simple tax payers, then they do not need members and could not care much if they are in power or not so long as the money comes in. What can you do, well Spain is a nice place to live. Russia is a better democracy.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 08:00 pm, Tue 27th Nov 2007
It would be interesting for labour to know as it obviously has lost complete touch with the voter and the people out here in the real world we are losing patients with this hole thing of constantly taxing us over the environment. We're not buying it any more. And we don't want your ID cards either micro chipping is for dogs not for human beings.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Joan Iris Message left at 06:12 pm, Tue 27th Nov 2007
Living as I do near to the Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station on the East Coast of Suffolk, I am amazed at the lunacy of even the consideration of the possibility of building another NP Station on this vunerable coast or any where else for that matter. I am opposed to NP for many reasons I believe the LP is tackling the issue of Global Warming in entirely the wrong way. I have been a Suffolk County Councillor in the past, and worked along side Labour party colleagues to resist the building of Sizewell C. The same arguments that were valid then are valid now. I am very depressed at the way the Labour Party is regressing, on this subject and several others.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 07:52 pm, Tue 27th Nov 2007
I appreciate your concerns but nuclear power is the cleanest and cheapest form of energy. This is not my opinion it's intresting to note (i've been reading up on this and watching video's on 'youtube etc..) that one of the people advocating the use of nuclear power is a man named Patrick more an american ( not the astronomer) who was one of the co founders of the green peace movement. It,s also interesting to note that he resigned from green peace saying it has been hijacked by political movements using environmental issues to further their own political campaigns, to place extra taxation on us, and to push the hole one world government movement. What i find more disturbing is why when nuclear power looks set to make a come back dose it look like we're still going to waste an absolute fortune of tax payers money on wind farms when they will not be needed?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Treborc Message left at 10:21 pm, Tue 27th Nov 2007
Clean for whom, cheaper for whom, Labour and the Tories have stated the tax payer will pay for the building of all Nuclear plants, but it's not the building which is the main cost although thats is massive it's the decommissioning which is beyond believe, The waste we are actually talking about putting the waste from the worlds power plants on the moon for god sake. Wind farms can and should give us about 20% of our power gas should give us 10%, then you have wood fired and coal fired both now cleaner then at anytime before both are cheaper and the decommissioning is far cheaper. The problem if a coal fired power station has an accident then people in the power station are at risk, if a nuclear power station goes really wrong millions of people might die not only here but in Ireland if they are off the coast of Wales. The fact is Labour wants private American companies to build these plants what a surprise.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 06:35 pm, Thu 29th Nov 2007
You got me on that one. Basicly i'd agree the power plants are already their the structures are their, the country is getting it's power so we should leave well leave well enough alone. You know i read a bit of history last night about the rise of fascism and one of the greatest misconceptions is that it was a right wing movement. It was not it was a left wing movement it was marxist reformers who created fashism and whats going on today in pollitics is scarily similar. Faschism and national socialism 'nazi's' was a form of communism that excepted capatalism and wanted control of capitalism or big business. It was a social ideal. The use of enviromental issues to push upon us social ideal's and taxation is down right corrupt and sinister. If democracy is over turned then what sounds great now like the EU to a social idealist could become a terrifying political machine and as for silly little pieces of paper with our so called rights will be worth nothing.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Joan Iris Message left at 09:41 am, Thu 29th Nov 2007
It is French companies which want to build, one front runner is Fromatome. Good old French, incidentally I understand GBs brother is employed in the nuclear industry in France to date I have not been able to verify it. Before we start off on a new build programme we should have a comprehensive energy programme which must include ways to reduce the use of electricity. At present we are just going for a quick fix leaving future generations to pick up the bill for our stupidity. At present Sizewell A is mothballed, there is no where to take the spent fuel, and it remains in the reactor. Sellafield is way past its sell by date, and cannot deal with the waste from the stations which are decommissioned, the cost has also escalated, Meanwhile we have armed Nuclear Police patroling our beaches because of the possible threat of terrorists. This is happening here and now in an AONB and Heritage Coast. Switch off the lights now!!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 01:22 am, Wed 28th Nov 2007
wile i appreciate your concerns the point was as we are quite clearly going back to nuclear power which can generate the hole countries power why bother with wind turbines. It's a con to stick money in some one's pocket and make the dumb public think our green taxes our going on a good cause. If the risk of nuclear power is their any way we should all benerfit out of that risk not be penalised with more taxes to make us think it's all in a good cause. You know what for all the tory sleaze during the thatcher years i don't think it has even come close to the lies and scheming of tony blair and that idiot brown all be i yhink brown is so thick he actualy believes the c##p he tells us. Some thing you should watch on 'google video' George hunt on UNCED.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
David Message left at 07:14 pm, Mon 26th Nov 2007
Would it not have been easier to say "I want to Tax you More"!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Terry Message left at 09:29 pm, Sat 24th Nov 2007
To return to the issue of global warming, I do sometimes severely doubt governments sincerity on this issue. Firstly we had Gordon Brown making what sounded like a serious statement on this important issue followed a day later by Ruth Kelly saying that this country desperately needed the 3rd runway at Heathrow and more runways at other airports and that all of the extra planes would not create any more pollution or noise. I have just read that Tom Harris at the DfT(railways) stating that more electrification for railways was of the agenda. Coupled with all of this they are now considering having super lorries of 84 tons on our roads. With serious doubts about the oil reserves having peaked, is no one among our polititions aware of what is going on or doesn't any one care about our Grand Children's futures?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 01:17 pm, Sun 25th Nov 2007
it's a great trick of modern politics to say your going to do one thing and then do exactly the opposite. These are not leaders rynning this country they are sheep all conned into believing the rubbish their masters at builderburg tell them. If you think my veiws are wrong go to 'youtube' and search for 'common purpose'.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
John Message left at 03:19 pm, Sat 24th Nov 2007
As Mr Brown is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - shortened United Kingdom, abbreviated UK - why is he using the name of one of the two states, i.e. (Great) Britain as the name for all of the Country? Northern Ireland is not nor has ever been part of (Great) Britain. Why does Mr Brown continue to show such disrespect for the people of Northern Ireland by implying that it is a region of Britain when in fact it is a state with equal status with (Great) Britain in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Treborc Message left at 09:30 pm, Sat 24th Nov 2007
We in Wales feel thesame of late
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
John Message left at 06:26 pm, Fri 23rd Nov 2007
I would like to see more information on savings in running costs and payback times on more energy efficient consumer products.I am sure this would provide the incentive for people to purchase the high energy efficient option.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 12:28 am, Sat 24th Nov 2007
How about the lights that light up parliament be switched off at night. Common Gordon and the rest of our political leaders live the life you preach.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Marie-Claire Message left at 03:46 pm, Fri 23rd Nov 2007
As usual the Prime Minister has given us a very inspiring speech. I especially welcome the concept of tackling carbon emmissions regarding international aviation. However, no where in the speech does he specify the criteria for the targets he has set. How and when will these targets be met and defined?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Dean Message left at 03:34 pm, Fri 23rd Nov 2007
No one in the western industrialised economies are willing to say that we have to stop buying & making unnecessary junk, after all, that is the purpose of our current society. If a bold vision is required why not be the first to suggest it. I am afriad we are going to let corporations "solve" the probem with technology, after all, they have a great track record over the last 100+ years. Can't interrupt sales on the high street.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Ben Message left at 10:59 pm, Thu 22nd Nov 2007
If you really want to help cut carbon emissions renationalise the railways, make the fares cheap and get people out their cars and off domestic flights. Also, tax the hell out of those domestic flights.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
John Message left at 09:26 am, Fri 23rd Nov 2007
Its all very well talking but when it comes to action there is a massive disconnect. The Government have committed to a 3rd runway at Heathrow which will contribute significantly to the growth in air travel as well as local traffic congestion/pollution. The justification is the expansion will be good for the economy - This is just the sort of thinking which needs to be challenged in order to move to a sustainable society.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Treborc Message left at 07:00 pm, Fri 23rd Nov 2007
The government are so proud of the DVLA in Swansea they have spot light shinning up at the building all the lights are left on even though the building is empty after 6pm. Good to see government asking it's own to save money and save the world.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
roland Message left at 12:24 am, Sat 24th Nov 2007
Well said! and think of all the extra carbon that the power stations will put into the air. So much for reducing the carbon foot print. In fact their should be a complete ban on all buildings having night lighting on the out side property or the inside when no one is their. Other wise the polar bears will have to live on drift would in hastings.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
David Clement Message left at 10:48 pm, Thu 22nd Nov 2007
we are missing the biggest energy source for Britain , it is clean coal, more money invested in this technology, then we have the coal reserves in this country to last around 400 years. so we can be self sufficient generating our own power, by our own generators, by our own workers/members. yet there is no mention of indigenous coal anywhere. the future is bright with coal British coal!
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Bill Message left at 09:14 pm, Thu 22nd Nov 2007
I am glad to see greater emphasis on offshore wind and community onshore projects

Unfortunately the rush for major onshore projects by certain multinational companies has done much to completely alienate many of the natural supporters of environmental schemes

Transport capacity is a major problem and it has two conflicting aspects:
public transport is unable to cope at many times due to lack of capacity
public transport is inefficient due to low average "load factors"

Somehow we must spread the usage of our transport system to decrease overload. Yet at the sme time we must fill the available spaces - a bus with only 10 passengers (the average) is less efficient than a car with 2 passengers - only half as carbon efficient as a car with 4 passengers

Martin comments below about HGVs - but heavier can also be more fuel efficient!
What could be done is to "encourage" HGV traffic off the roads at all peak times. Heavy tax on their use during peak periods and in busy areas.
That would have the benefit of making all other traffic more efficient - constant stop-start brake-accelerate is the worst cause of increased transport emission.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Martin Anthony Message left at 06:27 pm, Thu 22nd Nov 2007
I don't understand why people like "robert" can't punctuate or use capitals. The Prime Minister is right to be concerned about climate change but I think that even bigger changes to our lifestyles will need to occur than he is postulating. Currently there is concern about badgers (an endangered species) because alledgedly they spread TB in cattle. Personally, I think we should stop cattle farming and save the badger - the subsidy per cow is ridiculous and farming is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse emissions, despite employing so few people. More can be done to allow electric trams in British cities - the transport models are wrong, if the price of crude oil stays around 0 per barrel then they will be very economic. The entire railway system requires modernisation and electrification. More can be done to support microgeneration - perhaps individual (per house) wind turbines are uneconomic, but community turbines (per street, per estate) might not be. Cars, I agree, should be more carbon friendly but the biggest issue is car use - while people have to use cars for leisure or to get to work then our nation's carbon footprint can only be huge. Smaller cars and lorries will help but better public transport as on the continent will help more. Train freight is tremendously over-regulated. This should be relaxed. Lorry freight is under-regulated and should be tightened up - modern juggernauts do enormous damage to our roads as road damage is related to the fifth power of axle weight. Taxpayers subsidise heavy lorries as lorries do not pay enough road tax for the damage they do to our roads! This must be rectified. All in all, I wish the Prime Minister well but I think a bit of socialism would a) rally our supporters and b) bring some good news to those of us who stuck by the party in the eighties. So how about making things better by nationalising Northern Rock, abolishing tuition fees and charging higher taxes on the rich?
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
alan Message left at 09:38 pm, Thu 22nd Nov 2007
I wrote recently to the PMs office concerning a new system of combsution which can burn any and all hydrocarbons free of pollution and reduce our usage of fossil fuel imports by about 25% while giving us the opportunity to have 100mpg family cars. I was referred to someone in DTI who dismissed it completely. Obviously you people are not interested. Alan Dean
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
John Message left at 06:19 pm, Thu 22nd Nov 2007
Some excellent strategic initiatives. The best way to curb carbon emissions is to reduce our output. I live in a rental property and there is no incentive for my landlord to improve insulation, upgrade my boiler, etc., as I pick up the bills! Landlords should be induced to making these improvements. Also removing Vehicle Excise Duty and increasing the excise on fuel to compensate, whilst being unpopular with people with inefficient vehicles, would be a brave move.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
Treborc Message left at 12:47 pm, Fri 23rd Nov 2007
Why not make it part of the regulations you pay extra rent say double so land lords can do up houses once the houses are done up they can sit back and live on the nice money they earn. Yes by all means get rid of the tax on cars put it on Petrol that will help the people who use vehicles for travel like wheelchair users, better still ensure that all buses and all trains are cheaper and that disabled people can use them, if not remove the license from these companies. I still cannot use a train or bus in my area. But lets be honest the Labour party have cooked the books for so long any extra tax collected will go to fill the gap in spending. Brown looks at Green tax as another method of getting money, and it will end up in some American pocket for helping us people back to work or in some cases out of work.
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
robert Message left at 08:57 pm, Wed 21st Nov 2007
i agree with going green and saving our enviroment but i think gordon brown should resign as he preaches about labour have done such good things for us yes maybe but not while he has been in control its just one mistake after another the cd scandal is one of many mass immigration and poll dodging as in why wasnt there an election his policies of which no one is in favour of and he can try and dodge the real issue all he wants but while he is in office the uk can do no good
Options: reply to this message | report this message as offensive
 
Powered by taobase from Tangent Labs. Hosted by Rackspace, 2 Longwalk Road, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UB11 1BA.
Promoted by Chris Lennie, Acting General Secretary, the Labour Party on behalf of the Labour Party, both at 39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0HA.