I would love the change to taxing older cars (which I guess is what Peter is talking about) to be changed. The legal precedent would be set for objecting to future VED changes, on the basis that when I purchased my car I knew the emissions figures but did not know I was ever going to have to pay more than I paid in VED at the time of purchase.

I was horrified to hear the press suggest that we might change the last budget's proposals for changes to Vehicle Excise Duty, made in support of tackling climate change. I don't believe that VED is at all useful as a device in changing behaviour and that fuel tax is the only effective mechanism (it relates to actual emissions rather than potential to cause emissions). However, these changes were clearly labelled as measures to tackle climate change and to alter them now would be disastrous, suggesting that we have no integrity and are willing to ditch principles in favour of vote-grabbing.

Climate change.. Is it all our fault or is it the planet earth doing what it has done over many hunreds of thousands of years ? Lets get the 4x4 thing over..yes I have one..I use it for my business.It is the only vehicle that will get me to some of the remote farms I work on. Now...sorry but as I live here in the moors I provide an essential service as an electrician.My electrical goods are going up in price due to fuel costs to the delivery companies,My electrical goods are going up in price because the manufacturers ae suffering fuel/energy costs,I am suffering because of my fuel costs,my customer will suffer an increase in costs...why because of all the fuel costs mentioned. I have to say though..what a handy way for the government to make cash !.Tax the fuel,tax the vehicles (all the new car sales.

Hey! Instead of just people joining in by not using plastic bags. How about the Government not joining in on any wars. We'd save all those flights abroad for Troops; weapons manufacture; fuel for ships win win eh? Exploding bombs can't be great for the environment can they? How about Companies joining in by producing goods without built in obsolescence? How many kinds of plug and recharger do you need? In other words when we ALL take the environment seriously perhaps we would make real progress, until then the plastic bag idea still looks a very small sticking plaster for the public conscience.

I partly aired this view within the confines of the comments on the EU treaty so apolgise for a repeat here. I mentioned that he so-called 'government scientists' are the only ones going on about 'climate change'. Why? OK, it would be perhaps 'nasty' to suggest that they are trying to justify their ongoing wages by their employer 'the governent', but when other eminent impartial scientists are saying that 95% of CFCs come off the sea (as they always have done - what, no cars in the jurassic era!!) then this beckons corruption and collusion to 'tax' us all for not being 'green' - before you wipe my comment, ask yourself why you didn't get the votes. It's a reasonble argument and one we're NOT falling for (From you) Give this 'green' stuff up, except where sensible (I.e environmental issues, toxic waste, not leaving an unused light on etc etc) sorry, but the fact is if I wanted to go with this 'hype' (And that's what it is) I'd vote for the Green Party. As it is, I'm another disenchanted Labour voter. You could clear the air in Britain by getting rid of Gordon Brown. Please don't pretend that isn't an issue. And please don't excuse petrol price rises with trying to get us onto public transport/be green again. You've seen people aren't fooled, so stop writing jokes that would be suitable for a Christmas cracker and start getting real if you want my vote again.

I casn't claim to know enough about climate change to be able to predict the future. What I do know is that the persistent increases in road fuel prices have done little (or nothing) to reduce the traffic on the road. It seems pretty clear that most people regard the cost of personal mobility as a priority when working out their budgets and make other sacrifices accordingly. It's a real sadness that, what is seen by many as a fundamental right of a western lifestyle, is being exploited by the government to raise taxes. Public transport is, for many of our fellow citizens, not a viable alternative. It's great that we have had a low inflation/interest economy for 11 years with no signs of the Tory boom/bust philosophy. I suggest the electorate have become quite complacent about that and now are looking for the other areas of Labour policy that simply are not working (for them!). My suggestion to lessen fuel consumption is to reappraise the way in which we manage traffic flow. I'm convinced that a sensible policy will achieve much greater fuel saving than price increases!

I forgot to mention, but if you are doing the experiment that I said about in my comment below, you must fill the glass with water to the height of the top ice cube. It works, and it shows what a nonsense 'rising sea levels' is

True. Ice shelves melt all the time, "calving" icebergs that, no matter how enormous, do not effect sea level. Because floating ice displaces the same volume of water as melted ice, iceberg that formed from floating ice on Antarctica's vast ice shelves add no volume to the ocean. However, Ice on land that is melting WILL increase sea volume as that ice did not form on the ocean. It makes me laugh that reputable new services show calving of glaciers as evidence of global warming and instill fear into the nieve populace. The government jumps on this chance to tax us even more. Research shows that the West antartic Ice sheet WON'T melt in the next 10 years as previoulsy thought BUT in the next 5000 years. Global warming is a cash cow!

I just think it's quite hypocritical for these outrageous fuel and road taxes that we pay to apparently help the climate, while our politicians drive around in their large jaguar saloons, putting their fuel,road tax and congestion charge bills under 'expenses', so we the tax payer pays for them! Global warming/climate change is just a scare tactic used by government around the world to increase taxes. Global warming will have no effect on sea levels around the world. I know that because of the following experiment - get a pint glass, and put lots of ice cubes in it (this signifies polar ice caps). Now top the glass up with water, and mark the water level with a pen (this signifies the oceans). Let all of the ice melt. You will see that the water level will not rise. I hope everyone realises that after this 'global warming' thing has been proven to be rubbish, there will be a new issue that governments will use to increase taxes. Maybe there will be a tax on oxygen - because you never know, one day we might run out of it. Or how about taxing fiborous foods - because they cause the body to produce more methane thus heating the atmosphere. Maybe we should introduce taxes and charges against people who comb their hair - because it kills hedgehogs that live in Russia - you may say that is plain stupid, but if I put on a lab coat and thick spectacles, would you believe me then?

I agree that we are in a climate change phase. However there is still no imperical evidence that humans have caused it. I believe it is a natural system that is kicking off, just like this natural system has done for millions of years. We are not going to be able to stop it. If the world governments were so worried about it then they would immediatly come up with emergency measures to stop us using fossil fuels over the next couple of years. However, because it is such a cash cow, ala fuel duty and road tax..etc that they can just tell us that the ice caps are melting and a penny on petrol will save us. This is all total rubbish and in 20 years we will suddenly realise that we had the wool pulled down over our eyes and that some people have gotten very very rich out of it.

We are costantly told buses are the greener alternative. Maybe so when they are full during the rush hour but I live in a rural area and generally outside of the rush hour, at most I see 3 or 4 people on each bus. Assuming the buses do something like 15mpg, lets say the bus will travel 60 passenger miles per gallon. Conversely, if I go out with my wife and we drive until 1 gallon is used, we will have travelled c54 miles i.e. 108 passeneger miles per gallon. How come we're constantly told to use public transport then? PS, the reason I don't use it is because fares for two people into our local town are dearer than the cost of petrol for the car, the car is ready to depart the moment I'm ready to leave, and I can't miss the last bus (6pm! - isn't rural transport great) All in all, lets get some policies that work - free bus travel for all, quadruple car tax on all but the smallest cars, tax the full value of car park spaces at work as a benefit in kind etc etc.

In my opinion this whole gigantic and sudden push for a "greener" world. Has come about purely for the business opportunities that it creates. The earth is warming up, yes, but it has done many times before. The "hockey stick" graph that Al Gore showed to "prove" climate change is worse than its ever been, has been studied by many scientist and proven to be hugely innacurate.(video.google.co.uk - just look) If they really cared for the environment then the US government wouldnt have brought out the patent for the ever lasting lightbulb. They also would NOT be carrying out their HAARP project (google it). They WOULD legalize cannabis ( or atleast make it legal to grow in crops, outside) as it is a far more efficient and green option for manufacturing paper than cutting down trees. Never mind about producing oil. This is just another step towards global government as is everything else Blair and Brown have put through, and Cameron soon will.

I'd like to ban Formula One racing. However, I really don't know what damage it is doing to the environment does anyone else? I'd also like to see Hilary Benn introducing much tougher methos for getting us all to reduce our emissions. I know he has to be careful about how much the public can take but other parties can hardly object to tough measues when they too want to be seen as the ones being strong on the environment. Jude

I'd like to ban Formula One racing. However, I really don't know what damage it is doing to the environment does anyone else? I'd also like to see Hilary Benn introducing much tougher methos for getting us all to reduce our emissions. I know he has to be careful about how much the public can take but other parties can hardly object to tough measues when they too want to be seen as the ones being strong on the environment.

Hilary, I have watched your reply video on YouTube and I have to say that I thought it was so bland as to be pointless. This whole exercise comes over as just a shallow sop to the concerned. You talk about engaging with people but the evidence of this exercise is that you ignore the comments and suggestions that are in any way challenging. Please can you, as a Government which for the moment has a strong majority, get on and do something worthwhile to significantly reduce our emissions while you still can? The key message to remember is that every gramme of CO2 that is emitted is making our problem worse, and the more we delay in taking worthwhile steps, the bigger the challenge becomes, both practically and politically.

Where is Iraque? I meant Iraq.

Instead of fighting a war in Iraque, which despite what the Americans and our government tell us, was purely about oil, why doesn't the government save it's money and our troops and invest it in developing sustainable fuel sources.

In response to Charles - I would go much further. Fit governors to cars to prevent stupid acceleration and braking, impose a fuel ration and limit the number of cars per household to ONE.

There is a problem with our perception of climate change. The efforts of government go largely unheeded by most of us. The issue does not reach our daily lives. The government must do more to keep the issue in the minds of everyone. I propose a 50 mph limit on all roads for all vehicles. This would save about 15% of the fuel currently used. In addition cars of more than 1200 cc should be heavily taxed, and the manufacture of cars which are of more capacity than 2,000 cc should be banned in two years time. These measure would convince us all that we have to do all we can as individuals for our climate. These small mesures would bring the issue of climate change into focus for most of us, and it would kee it there. Until measures such as these are brought in Climte change is a theoretical issue that passes us by,

Sadly the government doesn't have the courage to do something like this. Until they have done enough to inform and educate the public about the realities of climate change to the point that people actually believe and accept it, there would be a rebellion from the hard-core sceptics. But your suggestion is absolutely spot-on from a rational point of view, and the sooner that roads get used in as measured a way as possible as they are intended to be used - simply as a way of getting from A to B - the better for all of us. There is no need for vehicles to be more powerful than you describe and it is wasteful for them to be built in a way that simply satisfies people's shallow vanities, knowing what we do now.

Climate change is an all important agenda that needs to be addressed and not ignored world-wide. The UK has taken the matter right on board in the right direction as high lighted as an integral part of Mayor Ken Livingstone's Agenda and list of high priorities. As, when one starts the others will surely follow, and reducing green house gases will then prove to be everybody's priority, not just the politicians! So well done Hilary Benn in all you do as well as being the environment supremo of the labour party!. Best regards. Shiranee Ranasinghe CLP Ilford South

Green Policies are a myth Big Business runs them Governments have no say. why do we ned cars that Travel at speeds between 100 &200 mph we dont, Car manufacturers do for Profits Millionaires by them They have no right to pollute this plannet. by position or wealth Why do we tolerate Drunks on our streets We Dont Large brewers do for profit and with the help of longer drinking hours. Why do we need millions of tons of over packaging We Dont Super Markets and big business does for profit. the government now proposes more to dispose of it make the super markets pay Half the world trade is not needed and is the biggest polluter. `strawberries flown from South Africa ? Why do we build appliaces with stand by mode. they should be on or off Why do we need Huge delivery lorries up to 40 metric tons. we dont Big business does. Why do need to bring bottled Water from France; we dont Big business does for profits. Why do we need to manufacture goods in country send them abroad to be reimported we dont. Millions of empty seats fly around the world why? the ruling elite and the rich are the worse polluters of the this planet among the population. Why do we allow certain groups to over populate regions for political reasons . the planet cannot sustain the rate of population growth These are but a few of the examples. There are Hundreds more of totally needless activities. All controlled in most cases by big business whose profits run into billions and some outstrip even Nations Governments pretend to be green They cant be. Big business won't let them. They only hit the vulnerable, the poor,and run roughshod over the general populace. whilst the rich and privileged carry on inc many MP,s

The UK takes a strong line in international negotiations on climate change, but UK carbon emissions are increasing, and it looks like the UK will build new coal fired power stations and expand aviation capacity, undermining our credibility on the world statge. Does this worry you?

This government beggar’s belief, they are about as committed to reducing global warming as I am. The labour party believes in only three things tax, tax and more tax. Ministers are driven around in gas guzzling cars paid for by the tax payer then have the audacity to punish decent hardworking people, I would admire them more if they showed their true socialist colours. I could also carry on for hours regarding their hypocrisy, but why bother the next bunch of numties can have a turn in a few years time.

I totally agree they are all a bunch of self promoting, overpaid, brain dead, yes men,(did I leave anything out?) but unfortunately the vast majority of the worlds population are worse. Buy a good set of wellies, some high factor sun cream, a house on a hill sheltered from the wind in the countryside and watch the show. I give it 10 years tops. Has nobody noticed that when ice starts to melt it doesn't do it linearly the running water starts a crescendo. With the tundra and most northern frozen lakes giving of methane like its going out of fashion, whether its man made or natural is immaterial, its going to happen! Ho and by the way anyone out there that thinks global warming will give you warmer weather forget it all your going to get is extremes, summers too hot, too wet, too everything and when the extra fresh water starts pouring out of those Russian rivers straight into the head of the gulf stream you may find your winters a little chillier as well. Sleep well everyone!

Hi, Congratulations for doing what you could at Bali under the circumstances. So now how can I, and the charity, the Foundation for Endangered Species, push our vision along in practice and in practical terms? I am the 'Environmental Concern' adviser for UNESCO Schools (just changing from ASPnet)in the UK Commission, and would welcome your advice. I am trying to put together a package where the National Curriculum, Key Stages and an interesting 'hands-on' package such as Wildlife Gardening and Animal Feeding Stations can be made useful to both teachers and students. Moreover, this information package we are putting together is meant to be teacher-friendly and not meant to add hours onto teachers workload. It is meant to help get 'Environmental Concern' into UNESCO related schools (as well as in their linked schools abroad) in as many ways as possible. Secondly, we have very good links with Nepal schools and would like to use this situation to secure even greater advantages. The charity, the Foundation for Endangered Species, holds this of highest importance and is interested in long term programmes. Can you advise us on these and any related areas, as it would be most welcome? Thank you, best wishes, Andy Mydellton. CEO Foundation for Endangered Species.

Instead of worrying about climate change which is a natural cycle anyway, why not work on the issues in this country first like immigration and crime? Most people don't really care about climate change anyway as they're too busy worrying about losing their identity from the mass of immigrants dictating their demands or their personal safety and property with the explosion of crime. First things first, instead of the typical Labour ignorance of leaving everything in hand in the hope it all disapears, start making changes here! I'm so confident that labour will be nothing but a bad memory in the next election, I'll make a £1000 donation to them if they make it through.

Government currently spend millions subsidising large scale windpower schemes, what action will the government take to make it easier and cheaper for micro generation schemes to be developed.

To stop the catastrophic effects of climate change we need global cuts in carbon emissions of at least 80%. What is your position on calling for the introduction of legally binding targets for developed nations to cut their own emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, especially when UK targets are currently only 60% by 2050?

Due to a chronic housing shortage, the government are looking at around three million homes being built in the near future. As domestic properties already make up a large proportion of our national carbon footprint, do you not think it wise to bring forward the 2016 target to have all new build properties being built to a carbon neutral spec, to something more ambitious like 2012? I don't see the need for such a long lead in time.

As regards re-newable energy versus nuclear,fossil fueled etc.It is my believe that re-newable is twice as costly as traditional power generation. Secondly if the government do go for the nuclear option will this mean the country will once again produce it,s own turbines and ancillary eqiupment thereby creating manufacturing jobs and training

Can the Labour Government not give a stronger push to local authorities to assist individuals wanting to do their bit towards generating renewable energy. We have been trying to get permission for a domestic wind turbine for a couple of years but the local authority are insisting on guaranteed noise figures without stating what they what they would find acceptable and, since these vary from installation to installation, the wind turbine manufacturer can provide these. Is there not something that government can do to set standards? It does feel that we are getting behind on renewables compared with other European countries despite professed good intentions. We know solar is an easy process but the pay back is approx. 25 years and so not financial viable, whereas wind generation, while not universally suitable, can be much better. Denis Matthews

i think labour party need to take global warming serious. because has a party we done really will has a party and i will like us to carrying on do what will are doing thanks to tony. who have carry us since 1997, but there is still work to do. i agree with why do people need to fly from one city to other, were you can get a bus.i will like to see more money spend on nuclear power.

In order to achieve the best outcome for a global climate change deal will you be inviting scientists on board for advice?

i agree with Andre why do people need to fly from Manchester to London its just pointless you can get a bus or take a car. also i believe that if Callum thinks that climate change isnt real he can go and get himself a nice bungalow by the sea and sit there as the water goes up over his head.

If our Labour government is serious about global warming; the very least it can do is slowing down the growth of air travel, encouraging airlines to operate only on long-haul flights thus reducing the numbers of take offs and landings by not allowing the construction of the third runway. And gain merit both with the Party and the electorate.

Seems to me that this is a talk to yourself brother comment area because Mr Hilary Benn has never responded to anything at all despite the many comments posted - so fat lot of good he is. How can we in the Labour party be regarded as even remotely pro-environment when we have just approved another coal fired power station. INEXCUSABLE.

Please provide scientific evidence that temperatures have increased due to increased carbon emissions. I mean evidence from scientists who have actually carried out research and who's research are not funded by the government. Bit of a rethorical request as there is no such evidence unless the graphs are interpreted unscientifically. Also please supply evidence that wind turbines are positively energy efficient taking into account building costs and energy consumption therein.

I would like to see all the money planned to spend on nuclear power spent on renewable energy, wind, wave and solar power. I am very much against poisoning the earth with radioactive waste that can be a target for terrorists and can potentially leak into our water and land.

Ultimately we will have nothing but renewables by definition, but global warming is such a large and increasing threat to life on this planet that we cannot afford to avoid using our most powerful existing "weapons" in this war for survival whilst hoping that wind, wave, tidal, thermal and solar will develop sufficiently in the interim to provide the reliable power supply required to drive our homes, businesses and transport systems with zero carbon emission. ...and all this talk of nuclear waste fails to mention the actual physical quantities involved in comparison to fossil fuel based systems. For example, using modern nuclear fission based power stations with waste reprocessing, around a house-sized amount of high level waste would be produced in supplying the world's energy needs for a century. In comparison, a coal fired power station would produce the same amount of toxic waste (and thousands of tons of carbon dioxide) in powering a small city for twenty-four hours. From an ethical viewpoint, there is no reason why schemes cannot be set up to allow individuals to give money towards research to make society work in a sustainable manner - whilst highly paid individuals such as premier league footballers could surely make do with a million or so less per annum? Such schemes could, of course, be pan-national, and made to work within mixed economies (as opposed to the current obsession with consumption).

There's a lot of sense in what you say James regarding use of energy in the future. Unfortunately you seem to have bought into the assumption that carbon emmisions are the biggest threat. Do you have any evidence that carbon (as opposed to water vapour which has been shown to trap in collosal amounts of heat) has any influence on the mean temperature of the earth? In the last century there have been several instances of lowering of global average temperature coinciding with increases in levels of carbon dioxide and vice versa. Call me a heretic if you like but prove it by documentary evidence, not political expediency.

What do you think causes more water vapour in the atmosphere? Increased temperature, of course. But what is causing the temperature to increase so that there is more water vapour in the atmosphere? Well, there is very extensive scientific research supporting the theory that this is caused by human activity - something called the greenhouse effect. There is a vast amount of information about this readily available on the internet, including the very thorough reports by the IPCC. Most people who don't accept the theory have never looked into it in any detail, but don't believe in it as a pure article of faith. Personally I will stick to the science on this one rather than faith.

Hilary Benn The issue of climate should surely be tackled with all three political parties consensus. What joint meetings and agreements have you made with the other parties. Chris Moore

In addition to Christophers comments, I hope that the remit of Lord Turner's future report will allow him to address the key issues of expanding mixed energy production (renewables and not), the eventual decarbonisation of the UK economy after, or better before, 2050 (hopefully we are not too late already to stop serious warming, leading to sea level rise, burning jungles, loss of arable land and water resources, and even a mass extinction - its happened before), and also a possible oil, and other resources, crunch/production peak (with its likely economic and social consequences)? May be one possible starting solution is to increase funding to regenerate the moorland peatbogs, which are a major CO2 sink. In recent years especially, the peat has been eroding so releasing its C02 and adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Nick.

All the Government's good efforts on getting international agreement on climate change are being undermined by their action at home. Why is the Government considering building a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth when the UK has so much renewable energy potential?

We have the Age Law now which I believe makes the age stipulation for apprenticeships technically illegal. Which is why I am fed up with all this emphasis given to apprenticeships. Yet there are providers of apprenticeships e.g.Key Training in Basingstoke stating that they are exempt, surely not. I firmly believe that training for a skilled occupation should be freely available to the unemployed of all ages. Because I for one have always wanted to train to be an accountant, which has been difficult when educational establishments offer exemptions from tuition fees only, but of there are all the other fees e.g.exam, registration.

To combat climate change it would be a good idea to encourage the replacement of gas boilers. Housing associations, in particular the Guinness Trust, are reluctant to do this because they don't want to spend. So therefore the only way to ensure this is by legislation compelling housing associations by law to replace gas boilers, this would certainly go a long way to reducing CO2 emissions from the use of gas. Also with the rising costs of mains gas it would be cheaper then for housing association tenants. Solar heating would certainly save housing association tenants money, because of course the housing association would be paying for the installation. I feel sure that it maybe cheaper to have these boilers converted to calor gas. Not sure whether you would still have CO2 emissions from calor gas.

Five years ago I had installed on/in my house a four panel solar heating system to heat (or add to the heating of) water for domestic hot water. Each year, from May to October we are able to turn off our boiler, the solar heating supplying our hot water needs. The installation costs were high and I doubt that I am yet breaking even balancing the savings in fuel costs and the installation costs. But if my house were a new house and, during its building the solar heating was included as part of the building process the installation costs would have been substantially lower. My saving in gas consumption has been good but only on a small scale. If all new housing had to have solar heating by planning law, progressively there would be a substantial saving in fuel consumption. Why don't we have such a simple and effective policy? Geoff Mander

This is a very hot topic telling by the amount of comments. It seem to me quit obvious how to change this country and get support from the mojorty of people. Get the local authorities to install the renewable energy. The goverment lends the local authorty the money to build wind farm and other type of renewable energy as these start to make money then they pay the money back, when scheme is payed for they can use this money to build more or reduce the council tax burden. The council should go for making 100% of what house and bussneses use and you could see council tax come down by half or services go up at no cost to tax payers. This will help the balance of payment as we won't need to import coal and as much gas. Also we need to plant more trees the type that can be coppiced and use to change in to bio fuel and then we would not need to import as much oil see were im going. The money to pay for this should come from tax on flight not to much per person say £10 and the 70p per liter we pay on petrol some of the tax was put on for environment reasons so spend it on the environment. Stop Councils dumping rubbish recycle and what cant be recycled sould go in to plant that ferments it and burns of the gas as this is greener than incineration that add to the problem.

I am deeply worried that we can see a sudden jump in CO2 levels because of positive feedbacks in the world climate system. The rapid depletion of the Arctic ice and the reduction in the capacity of the sea to absorb CO2 are both pointing to a serious situation in the next decade. Do you agree that we need to move towards international targets that reduce the risk of runaway global warming? Monbiot has urged an 80% reduction by 2020.

Some of this will require EU agreement, but slash VAT on ALL products that benefit the environment. This will encourage more people to buy them and install them. This will also help manufacturing industry so the tax is regain through corporation taxation. And put a substantial amount into R&D for environmental measures. Finally, there are some projects that are too big for companies, these will need a lead from government. For example, extending the high-speed channel link up the east and west coasts, this will relief the pressure on the south east where a lot of environmental harm is being done due to over population.

Slashing VAT on products/services which benefit the environment sounds such a workable idea. Eco-friendly gizmos are not affordable by the less well-off. I am sure poorer people feel left out but in this way they would be able to do their bit. What a grand role for the EU to enable VAT cuts across Europe AND lead research. I wonder if the EU will then tighten its belt if there is not so much available to fund them?

The UK government seems to be taking a strong line on climate change, and yet UK carbon emissions are increasing and it looks like the UK will build new coal fired power stations and expand aviation capacity. The climate bill, as it stands, does not consider emissions from aviation and shipping in its reduction targets. Also, recent research shows that the production of biofuels actually increase the levels of CO2 released into the atmosphere. At this stage, is there any hope the UK government will succeed in reducing CO2 emissions by 60% (let alone the 80% needed) by 2050?

I aggree totally with Dale we are not taking climate change seriously, the airport expansion will only increase our carbon output and make the lives of 1000s of families unbearable. I hope it is not true that the government is letting Eon build the coal-fired station without a guarantee of carbon capture?

Why dont the government planning laws make all new build houses install a solar panel roof, Plus all high rise office buildings and any other new construction automatically install energy saving technology as a normal compliance with environmental issues.

On climate change one major challenge is going to be finding a way to bring global emissions dramatically down that does not close the door for poor countries and emerging economies to tackle the huge levels of poverty they face. How would you suggest this might happen?

Now we have America on board dont let them renage on anything and also work flat out to get India and China onboard as well. I know most of the so called global warming is natural but hey lets at least give nature a helping hand.

Why are we wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers money on this unproven myth of Global Warming? Climate Change, despite what "Environmental Terrorists" tell us is a natural event. 1000 years ago the North Polar Ice caps melted back to the levels that grass grew, and Ducks lived, where today is Glacier and Ice cap. Polar Bears survived so did the Eskimo. Its a Natural Event, there's better things to spend taxpayers money on, than this unproven myth from the same Scientists that told us to expected the end of the World from the Millenium bug.

You clearly have not looked into the science behind the theory of AGW, otherwise you wouldn't be making such sweeping and uneducated statements. No-one denies that the climate is always changing, and historically this change has pretty much all been down to purely natural causes. The fundamental difference today is that this is no longer the case. The natural element continues to play its part, and without any manmade element the world's climate would probably be trending down at present. But overlaid on the natural influences is a very powerful human-caused effect, which is resulting in the world's climate changing extremely quickly in the direction of much higher temperatures than have been the norm throughout the relatively stable period the world has enjoyed for the past ten thousand years (the Holocene). It is pretty much inconceivable that the current change that we are experiencing is natural, as you suggest. There is no viable explanation for it in natural terms, but there is a totally viable explanation for it in terms of our activities, and the known physical properties of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. You can believe all you like that we are not the cause, but that is simply faith- rather than science-based.

Is This Rubbish How do we resolve the problem that as a nation we are all facing! 1. In the late Forties, and Fifties, the consumer on purchasing the weekly shopping (groceries) would take a Wicker Basket, or Hand Trolley to collect goods purchased. 2. Be it the Butcher Baker Greengrocer or Candlestick Maker, goods were rapped in greaseproof paper and placed in a simple brown/ or white paper bag. The goods were placed either into the consumers Wicker Basket, or Hand Trolley. 3. The consumer on reaching home after unpacking goods, the paper packaging was then used to light the fire. Conclusions In the world, we live in today the Butcher Baker Greengrocer and Candlestick Maker as we once knew have become extinct, owing to the Supermarkets. There once existed a monopolies control board, that unfortunately has become extinct, and Supermarkets globally control, provide, and dictate our daily menu, it’s called choice. Supermarkets are nothing but huge convenience stores, and owing to their financial status, now dominate our lives, which unfortunately will continue to do so unless government intervention brings them to heel. Supermarkets are one of the main culprits for their contribution of the millions tons of rubbish they produce by their packaging. The packaging in quantity is approximately 3 times that of the food consumed, which then has to be recycled, a council tax levied for its removal to landfill. In addition, the consumer has the packing cost passed on to them by the Supermarket for cost involved for Pre- packaging. It has been noted the Government intend to pass on a tax to Supermarkets as an attempt to rectify the tons and tons of pre-packaged goods. This is insufficient and should the law be passed, the rubbish tax will be passed on yet again to the consumer at no cost to the Supermarket. Supermarkets therefore should be made to reintroduce goods that the consumer can purchase loose, (i.e.) Fruit-Vegetables- Bakery, already some Supermarkets have already made it available to have a Butchery- Fishmongers which speaking as a consumer prefer. The United Kingdom once an island full of agriculture, and completely self-sufficient, now told by the Supermarkets, we have a choice, we can eat meat or vegetables exotic fruits the list is endless from all over the world, when all we need is in own back yard. Landfill Sites are one of the main contributors owing to their gas emissions of global-warming, further damaging water tables, public health and safety, damaging the health of newborn babies, cancer and lung problems. Noises from heavy plant are also damaging to the environment, not forgetting the vehicles that leave a trail paper trail wherever they go, not forgetting the plastic bags and bottles. The point of the exercise is simply to contain the amount of packaging produced in the food market today. The only ways to achieve that is by common sense, and going back to basics. Supermarkets will retaliate but do we really need to destroy our planet purely for their financial gain. The main players are the Conglomerate's of the world we all live. Dave Coppard

Having just finished reading 'The Hot Topic' by David King & Gabrielle Walker I think it is fair to say that we need to increase our targets for reducing Co2 emmissions by 2050. Saving the world's resources and reducing pollution seems like a no brainer to me. I would also like to see tax breaks and interest free loans to encourage householders to install solar heating and even wind turbines (an opposition idea so they claim)and other energy saving/creating devises such as 'smart electric meters'. We should also be using new technology to help developing countries to build clean bunring coal fired power stations through carbon capture, especially in China where two stations per week are coming on stream. I also think that pension funds should be encouraged to invest in companies that have good green policies and invest in infrastructure projects that are environmentally friendly or seek to reduce their carbon foot print with tax relief on returns. As for nuclear, well although very unpopular I think it will be necessary if we are to keep the lights on and reduce carbon emissions.

I can NOT believe there are so many comments of the ostrich type here. As if one could not see for oneself how utterley fleeced, ravaged and abused our planet looks and is. And it is the civil, mechanical, mining, chemical, etc. engineers who've earned their shilling or two enriching the manufacturers, banks, shareholders, etc. who are mithering us consumers to death to consume, consume, consume. I hope you can hear this voice of the Great British public, matey.

We go on at Indonesia and Brazil about degradation of the environment whilst we are busy spraying defoliant all over our urban spaces, cementing over gardens, tarmacing public spaces, when will the decline of our native carbon coloumn be halted? A few very simple measures would increase the biomass of the UK and the benifits would not be just in the ideological arena of global warming but in real enriching of the public space we all live. Plant more trees in city centres, let weeds grow on pavements, encourage wildlife and variety.

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF UNUSED MILL RACES IN BRITAIN. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROPOSALS TO UTILISE THESE AS AN ENERGY SOURCE?

Dear Hilary, Why is the labour party so obsessed with climate change agreements when according to OPEC we have 1000 years of oil left assuming a 20% increase in world consumption rate? As for the climate change issue, I understand that a specific part of the Antartic is warming up due to ozone layer depletion caused by CFC's. The world has been heating up since the turn of the century due to natural cycles in the activity of the sun. We have experienced such warm periods before & have not drowned. In our last golden age it was good for the UK & vines grew in Yorkshire. You must know that any changes that we could make to CO2 emmission would not be able to counterbalance the natural changes that are taking place. Yes, developing countries need more power. They need to develop hydro,solar & wind power & there is good business in it for us. If they do not, then world oil consumption could go up 4 times & then the oil would really run out soon.If they chop down the rain forests, then we really could have an even bigger problem. We need to plant more CO2 hungry crops & trees so that we can feed ourselves rather than flying in green beans from Kenya. This really is wastful on oil. Yes dear Hilary, let the foreign slaves grow the stuff cheap, fly it in & we will just offset the carbon, sit back & do nothing. What a pollicy for a so called socialist government.What happens when our empire turns on us and says sorry, price of beans/gas/cars/ is to double tomorrow? Using these silly global warming tactics to get things done is only going to prove counter productive in the longer run.

I agree that we should be having these global climate meetings but to be honest it is nearly impossible to get every country following one set of rules. I personally think we should concentrate on encouraging environmental awareness in our own country so then at least we as a nation know that we are taking the right steps. Work from the bottom to the top,first get the general public on your side and then start talking about global plans.

What has happened to smart meters? They were promised in the Energy White Paper last year but there was nothing in the recent Energy Bill?

To what extent have/are policy networks/communites involved with government on this particular policy area? And through what mechanisms?

We are destroying the environment at a fantastic rate, if we cannot even stop the Japanese whaling for spurious research reasons, why should we believe the rest of the world is educated and disciplined enough to understand and react to the dangers of climate change no matter how many treaties are signed by suited gentlemen in luxury locations around the world.We can see the velvet glove but where is the iron fist?

Why is population control rarely mentioned in this dabate. The more people the less open spaces, less trees more areas covered with concrete. I hardly ever hear politicians asking for population control indeed most of them seem to have large families themselves

I agree with the comments regarding using trains instead of lorries for cargo transport. Other countries do it, why not the UK? The proposals for the Mottram/Tintwistle bypass right through the Peak District goes against the government's policies on climate change. An uneccessary (and most destructive) road like this will only encourage more traffic and lorries cutting through the Pennines when they are supposed to be using the M62. There is already a tunnel through the Pennines, why not use it and save the £200 million quoted to build the bypass? Put the money to good use! Twice as many people are against the bypass as there are for it.

The new Mottram by-pass will reduce CO2 just so long as it is not stuffed full of small roundabouts for crossing minor roads. HGV's using a direct route from Lancs to S Yorks will also reduce fuel consumption, the M62 is already at capacity and M62 traffic will reduce due to the alternative route. Perhaps the main problem in fighting climate change is that most politicians have had their brains washed by the eco-fascists.

Mr Benn, I have a question regarding the Climate Change Bill that is currently making its way through Parliament. I warmly welcome the fact that the UK will be the first country in the world to set legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but was very concerned to read the United Nations report which concluded that if the rest of the developed world followed the pathway envisaged in Bill, dangerous climate change would be inevitable. I am particularly confused about the status of international aviation and shipping in the Bill. As I understand it, emissions from these sources are to be reported each year in accordance with international carbon reporting practice, but won't be included in the carbon budgets. This doesn't make sense. It's a bit like setting yourself a monthly budget but not counting spending on your credit card - you might appear to meet your target, but you'll go overdrawn when you have to pay your credit card bill. And it leaves us in the clearly nonsensical position that we will be more likely to meet our carbon budgets if we close the Channel Tunnel and force people to fly (which wouldn't count towards the budget) instead of going by train (which would)! Given that there is an internationally agreed way of apportioning these emissions, and given that excluding them will mean we will inevitably go overdrawn on our carbon budgets and fail to do our fair share to avoid dangerous climate change, please can you explain why emissions from international aviation and shipping have been excluded from the Climate Change Bill?

A very good point, very well made,

You can come up with a whole road atlas and it will do no good. Words and posturing are very easy and may make you lot feel like you have earned your vastly inflated salaries but they achieve nothing and never will. In general humans are by nature nasty self centered individuals who will always take the easiest path that suits themselves. Its like the Tax office chasing ordinary workers for a couple of hundred pounds, so that the investigations cost more than they get back instead of chasing offshore accounts watched over by expensive accountants. Its just too much work to do whats right. A motor and a generator are basically the same thing put power into it, it spins, spin it you get power out. I tend to look at the earths natural energy supplies the same, how much energy would it take to pump the worlds oceans back and forward twice a day every day? how much energy would it take to heat the entire planet every day. Do we invest money into ways to harness this free power. No we decide to dig up radioactive metals using vast amounts of carbon, process said Uranium using vast amounts of carbon, then either reprocess or just bury the vast amounts of radioactive waste. This is not carbon free and certainly not earth friendly, but it is easy! I recently heard someone on the radio say that in the "future" we will probably invent microbes that will eat the radioactive waste and turn it into hydrogen, just after we invent a tasty doughnut that makes you slim and politicians that don't feather their own beds. It isn't going to happen....Earth your on your own!!

Is their even a remote possibility that an awful lot of 'scientists' might have got it ever so slightly wrong? I can recall, that it was only in the 1970s the same scientists were predicting a return to the Ice Age? Instead of accepting everything our politicians throw at us, A casual perusal of research papers (even on the internet) will reveal very strong evidence to support the view that climate change is cyclical (ie it occurs about every 200 years and is related to increased solar activity ) the notion that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, actually has as many voices against as there are in support. The fact that we are dealing with dwindling fossil fuel resources leads me to the opinion that this is a bandwagon that suits all shades of the political spectrum. Members would do well to remember that it was none other than the odious Thatcher who started this bandwagon rolling. In those days she was carping on this subject in, what turned out to be, a successful attempt to gain her international credibility as a 'scientific' stateswoman.

The government recently proclaimed that all areas of policy would be scrutinized for their impact on the environment. If this is now the case why is the department of transport still allowing traffic calming schemes to be introduced by local authorities throughout the country despite the fact that they increase pollution by an alleged by The Sun 47%. Likewise 20 Mph speed limits which by the same measure increase pollution by 10% although both these figures would appear low on my calculations. Similarly new roundabouts on trunk roads can waste up to an extra litre of fuel for every HGV which passes over them, with a proportionate increase in pollution from all vehicles. Local authorities are still introducing weight limits on direct routes leading to massive extra pollution from HGV's overall.

We love our cars and yet our garages have become storage rooms so why not build jobs and security for all vehicles by building out-of-town and out-of-village multi-storey car parks with other vehicle maintenance facilities on site. To reduce our carbon footprint we all need to walk/bus/cycle a little further to our very convenient loves.

I want to see a truly left wing party that renounces the capitalist consumerism that has brought us to this impass. "Growth" is incomapitble with sustainablilty. We don't have to be a frugal as Cuba but it would help to examine that community more closely.