Ultimately, the government will only be succesfully in significantly reducing our carbon emissions if they manage it in such a way that the most envionmentally friendly, energy efficient choice is the easiest one for the members of the general public to make. At present the green choices for the citizens of this country are generally not only more expensive but put them to inconceivable inconvenience. There is not enough pressure on companies to make all packaging either recyclable or biodegradable and compulsory recycling should be legally enforced, but it is not. Furthermore, when it is more expensive for a person to get a single train ticket from York to London than it is for them to fly return from London to Amsterdam clearly the government is not placing pressure where it should, taxing shrewdly or thinking in a practical way about the choices people are forced to make. People will only start to make the green choice when it is less expensive than getting in their car. As for taking a bike, in London you are constantly in danger because there are not enough bicycle lanes and there is no respect for cyclists from the drivers. So, in conclusion, how is the government planning to change people's attitudes if it is so unattractive a prospect and/or difficult for the individual?

The last three sentence should read as follows. How can this be paid for? Whar about being serious about retrieving the £41Bn of atax evasion now owing that was identified in the budget statement small print. This vast amount would would also make a huge dent in what is required for eliminating child poverty, provide better pensions and also provide desperately needed housing.

First of all this budget as well as labour policy just does not go far enough. All of our party,s policy is not only a complete mess it is totally contradictory. Gordon Brown tries to talk tough probably means he would like to be, but then pulls back in case he upsets the big business sector. If that is not bad enough Ruth Kelly completely undermines him by backing the third runway at Heathrow as well as allowing more motorway building, on top of that she states that her way of getting more people out of their cars and on to public transport is to allow the railway companies put fares up through the roof by saying that the government are going to drastically cut their funding of the railways to 25% and that the passengers must provide the remaining 75%. John Hutton now says that we must burn more coal for electricity and that perhaps we may be able to find a way of reducing carbon emissions. They are now cutting out the allowances for home insulation and for solar panells. How can this be paid for? What about being serious about retrieving the £41 Billion that was identified in the budget statement small print. This vast amount would also make a large dent in child poverty provide better pensions. also provide desperately needed housing.

Given the lead time in building new nuclear power stations it is almost certain new fossil fuel power stations will need to be built in the short term to meet Britains energy needs. 'Fuel poverty' is already a social issue, imagine how much worse things would be if there was not enough electricity to go round and it was rationed by price. The fossil fuel choices are LNG (liquefied natural gas) which is clean and relatively low carbon and clean coal. Clean coal is a technology well worth developing. Coal is burnt in pure oxygen so there are no nitrous oxides given off, the sulphur is filtered and the C02 can be sequested in old gas fields. The power stations can be designed in such a way that the sequestration technology can be added later when it becomes available.

The budget was very disappointing - far too little, far too late. And it most certainly was not a 'green budget', as claimed. The tax on high-polluting cars should be much greater and should have come into effect immediately - we cannot afford to wait another two years for these selfish drivers to see sense. The statement on free plastic bags was pathetic; the Government should act now - why allow the supermarkets to waste yet more time? And the Government should have announced that the third runway at Heathrow and all other airport expansion schemes will be abandoned.

Whilst being very supportive of goverrnment rhetoric on green initiatives, it is deeply disappointing seeing Labour supporting the expansion of Heathrow and air travel more generally. How is this either a) good for the environment, or b)listening to local people - very opposed to further expansion. It doesn't even stack up economically - most of the "value added" from the project will leave Britain in the form of salaries or profits for foreign owned airlines, or foreign owned BAA.

This talk of taxing carrier bags is a bit of gesture in my opinion. I am sure newspapers have a much bigger impact on the environment. Think of all the trees that would be saved if everyone stopped buying the Daily Mail. How about charging VAT on newspapers?

Its alright banging on about going green. How big is the carbon footprint for the manufacturing, maintenance etc for a single wind turbine. They will never pay for themselves purely given the manufacturing cost. Going green is a big con conceived by the government purely to raise taxes.

Is no one at the Labour Party listening to scientists? CO2 is a result of global warming,it is a proven truth. Many scientists(the ones not in the pocket of green industries), are in agreement that anthropological global warming is a myth. No one is disputing the fact that climate change is happening, but it is not the fault of man. The increased taxes for petrol guzzling cars on the pretense that it will somehow save the planet is quite ironic given that recent studies have shown that Earth is not the only planet that has been warming in the last few years, I was not aware that there were Range Rover's on Mars - will they be taxed too?

Gavin, if you wish to believe that current global warming (and associated climate change) is not due to human activity then that is your choice, but you should not misrepresent the views of the scientific community. You ask, "Is no one at the Labour Party listening to scientists?" The answer is clearly 'yes' inasmuch as the Party acknowledges that we must cut emissions of 'greenhouse gases' in order to reduce the consequences of global warming, but if the Party really did treat this issue with the seriousness demanded by the scientific community then they would do far more than they are to reduce emissions (for a start Labour would abandon the idea of a third runway at Heathrow and all other airport expansions). The relationship between temperature and C02 is far more complex than you suggest due to positive feedback mechanisms and other factors that trigger temperature changes. Your reference to Mars is a red-herring since there are other reasons for its warming and if it was linked (due to solar activity) with the Earth's warming then we would expect all the planets to show a similar warming, which is not the case. Whilst it is true that there are some scientists who are still not convinced that man is responsible they are very much in the minority and most are not even climate scientists! The majority view within the scientific community is that anthropogenic climate change is considered proven on the balance of probabilities. These are reputable scientists who are NOT "in the pocket of green industries".

Terry, I think you are making a play on words in your statement to Gavin, you say "some scientists" and "much in the minority" for the natural climate change. then you go on to qualify with the "majority view" and "considered proven on the balance of probabilities" for anthropogenic induced change, balance of probabilities can be taken either way. Only 14,000 years ago we were in the grip of an ice age, before that the earth experienced a very tropical climate and before that another ice age, etc etc, the scientific community call these periods Interglacial s, we are supposed to be in an interglacial now ,Temperature and C O 2,yes there is a complicated relationship between temperature and C O 2 being locked mostly in the oceans and sea's and its accumulation and release prompting climate change. In my opinion I think we have been at this point before again and again in earths history and I don't think any amount of arrogant feeble tinkering by man will have any effect at all, probably not even slowing it down. As for air travel,runways, gas guzzlers and supermarket carrier bags they are part of everyday modern life, it would be a very brave, unpopular and suicidal political party to try to change these icons of modern life.

Even if climate change is a natural phenomemon we should try to do something about it. If a meteorite was appoaching the earth and we could deflect it with international effort, we wouldn't just throw up our arms in horror and say 'Oh, it's just a natural thing so let it happen'

But the increase in CO2 emissions is down to increased car emissions, bruning of fossil fuels and other human behaviours. The only way to stop people from using their gas-guzzlers...nilly is to hit them where it hurts; their wallets.

Gavin, Atally the Labour Party IS listening to the scientists. There are only a handful of people left arguing that current climate change are not human-induced - and there are no peer-reviewed articles around in recent times that make that case. 98% of the scientific community is calling out for action; and we are still fiddling at the margins of policy.

Sean, I think you are missing the point Gavin has made, anyone who has studied geology will know human induced global warming is a myth, how many times do you think the earth has had no frozen poles?, look through the strata and see how many times the sea level has risen or deserts have formed?, where do you think the salt under Cheshire has come from? The earth warming and cooling is a natural occurrence. I think global warming is a band wagon that politicians have been either glad to get on or frightened to deny. What about this ludicrous carbon tax, how can a clean industry sell its carbon units to a high producing one, where is this money going?, you can bet your bottom dollar its not on green technology. We seem to be concentrating on rationing by putting up the cost of things such as motoring with high fuel costs, high road tax and road pricing.Oh and don't forget the taxing to reduce the use of carrier bags. I think if we are not careful we may soon be facing a huge backlash on taxes and it will come from our supporters who can least afford the increases year on year.

Michael, no-one is denying that the climate of the Earth has not changed many times in the past and for many reasons, but that does not mean that "human induced global warming is a myth". Your argument is totally lacking in logic. Do you really believe that the thousands of world-leading climatologists, physicists and, yes, even geologists who consider human induced global warming to be a reality are not aware that the planet has warmed and cooled in the past for reasons that have nothing to do with man (such as changing solar activity and changes to the earth's orbit)? Of course they know this and these variations have been included in the models used to predict future climate change. The consequences of human activities (most notably the burning of fossil fuels and the emission of 'greenhouse' gases) are superimposed on top of the natural changes to which you refer - the two are not mutually exclusive as you seem to believe.

Our current trned of climate change is due to increased greenhouse gas emissions, we can stop these if we tax those who continue to use their cars. End of story. Denying human-induced climate change is a dead argument.

Actually, if you are reffering to the the IPCC, you may not be aware that this organization is politically backed ie it has an agenda. Many authors have subsequently come out and publicly disagreed with the claims made in IPCC reports. I suggest you start listening to scientific fact, rather than political propoganda.

Gavin, the IPCC is most emphatically not an organisation that is "politically backed" nor does it have "an agenda" - your claims are no more than cheap and empty rhetoric. The IPCC is a scientific body whose membership consists of most of the world's leading climate scientists and atmospheric physicists, NOT politicians. It does not carry out research itself but evaluates and assesses the best evidence available as published globally in the independent and refereed scientific literature. Of the 4,000 or so scientists who have contributed to the work of the IPCC only a handful "have subsequently come out and publicly disagreed with the claims made in IPCC reports", and most of these disagreements have been over the likely consequences of global warming rather than its cause or the basic physics. Indeed, for every scientist who has criticised the IPCC for being too 'alarmist' or too 'definite' in its conclusions, there is another scientist who has criticised the IPCC for not being 'alarmist' enough or 'definite' enough. Thus, overall the IPCC probably represents the median or average opinion of the scientific community.

While I realise that cutting emmissions is essential and finding alternative fuels is a must; surely the best way to assist with this is to re-nationlise public transport and provide a competative alternative to the car. I realise these things cost money, but in the long run you will be praised in the future for taking the difficult decision now. Surely politicians must stop this idea of acting for the now and public opinion polls or business (money talks) and start thinking about long term strategies? If we don't then in a few years there may not be anyone around to care.

I am not convinced that subsidising bus services is necessarily good for the environment. Subsidising bus services is worthwhile because it helps young people and older people who don't have cars to get out and about. However the number of buses being driven around with only one or two people in suggests it would be much more energy efficient if they were being transported by car.