Climate Change Bill
Posted by Sarah McCarthy-Fry, MP for Portsmouth North, at 09:02, Fri 30 March 2007:
On 13 March, the Government unveiled the draft Bill on Climate Change.
The debate on climate change has shifted from whether we need to act to how much we need to do by when.
The Climate Change Bill will:
Make challenging carbon dioxide reductions targets for 2020 and 2050 legally binding
Introduce a system of 'carbon budgeting' capping emissions over five-year periods
Create a new independent body to advise on the setting of carbon budgets and to report on Government progress
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you concerned about climate change? Do you think the draft climate change bill goes far enough?
Do you think that people who take more flights or own larger cars ought to pay more green taxes? Do you agree with the Government’s decision to phase out old-fashioned energy-sapping bulbs within four years? Would you say you were more or less concerned about climate change than you were this time last year?
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Mark Graham, 10:25, Fri 30 March 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
I think the concern about climate change has been overtaken by the 'money men', meaning what really is being done by big businesses? I say a token effort, seen to be doing something to keep people happy. We as a nation produce 2% of global carbon emissions, the media informs us that every household produces 25% using their car, 20% using energy, but fudging figures is easy to try and make people feel guilty because 20% of 2% globally is very little amount, but what of a big business?? never hear those figures. If packaging was produced less, would company's go out of business, its easier to blame us purchasing the goods from the supermarkets than them,why should we in Portsmouth concern ourselves with what waste we produce because incineration is renewable energy, considering the veiw of Portsmouth is now ruined by a landfill site. As far as energy saving lightbulbs they cannot be used in my house because we have dimmer switches in the lounge, dining room and all 3 bedrooms, the kitchen and bathroom have low wattage spotlights. All in all climate change is funding a welfare state and stupid wars. My biggest gripe is the people that live in this country and do not contribute(welfare state)are producing carbon emissions and are not paying a penny, but still can afford to fly away on holiday and drive around to where ever they want.
Posted by Richard Hogg, 11:51, Fri 30 March 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
I think that we have to be tougher than we are on climate change, and tougher on those countries that are not taking the correct steps. The UK should lead by example, whilst putting as much pressure on other countries as possible to do the same (especially the United States). For the developing countries we need to help them to reach a balance, recognising that they may need fossil fuels, that we have taken for granted, longer than we do (ie. the UK can afford to move to newer technologies, whereas developing countries cannot yet).
I believe that people with larger cars should pay considerably more as they can simply choose to buy a smaller car. Flights are more tricky - if you simply raise the flight cost then this just allows the better well off to travel and the less well of to not travel. My view is that each family should be allocated a number of air miles, and they should only be able to travel to that air mile limit (ie. they can save them up each year to travel a longer distance the next year), or they can sell them to others for an agreed standard rate if they don't want to use them. This ensures that all people have the same ability to travel regardless of their financial position, and those that don't fly benefit from those who want to, by selling their air miles. More important it should limit flying, especially if the air miles only allow denistations that are within a 4 hour flight radius of the UK. Incentives should be added for businesses to invest in video conferencing to remove air travel as much as possible for business purposes also.
Light bulbs.....we should all be using light bulbs that are more efficient, as well as turning them off when not in use.
Posted by John Lance, 14:05, Fri 30 March 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
I agree up to a point with Richard Hogg that we should all use efficient light bulbs - but in places where the light is on only occasionally, I doubt whether the saving in energy made by replacing an existing tungsten bulb would ever equal the energy used in manufacturing an efficient one. And as for switching lights off, do we need every street light on throughout the night?
A similar argument may apply to replacing an existing car with a new more efficient one whose energy consumption during manufacture is not usual taken into account. Perhaps we should not be 'allowed' a new car until the previous one is at least 10+ years old and ready for recycling!