HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by Brent Tapscott, 16:28, Sun 28 May 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I don't believe the public will take this seriously (or, at least, as seriously as they should) while the US continues to ignore the issue. The UK & EU must keep presurising the USA to at least acknowledge that there is an issue and then to do something about (eg stop producing large fuel inefficient cars). In the UK, we need to encourage local councils to create proper cycle paths (not the one yard of verge covered in grit and rubbish that most of them seem to think meets the purpose) and develop a decent public transport system to encourage poeple away from cars - a system that meets the publics requirements rather than the current systems that do not.

• Posted by John Ennew, 22:01, Sun 28 May 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I'd like to see far more done to reduce the number of cars on our roads. Please improve public transport and make it a cheaper alternative to the car. In most journeys in Oxfordshire, it is cheaper to drive places than take the train.

• Posted by Philip Hutchinson, 12:14, Mon 29 May 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Dear Edward,

  Thank you for the opportunity to write to you on the topiv of climate change.

  My views are as follows.

  I think it is hyperbole to suggest that climate change is the most serious threat facing mankind. It is a peculiarly European hysteria not shared to the same degree elsewhere in the world.

  There is significant evidence that the climate is changing, but then it always has. We are coming to the end of an ice age (defined as having ice at the polar caps) and this has happened several times before. There is an excellent graphic on the web site of the Natural History Museum which neatly illustrates this. It also shows that human occupancy of the British Isles has been absent on several of these cycles: never because it got too hot, always because it got too cold. Thus we should expect the climate to be warming for poorly understood but natural reasons which have occurred previously.

  The scientific evidence for human contribution to climate change is weak. I suggest that you ask for the references in the peer reviewed literature, not those from the self reinforcing industry of the members of the IGCC who are all believers. I have asked colleagues who are members of the Royal Society, and believers, for these on several occasions and have not yet received one.

  Even if we give the benefit of the doubt and suppose there is a man made contribution to climate change the proposed responses are unsound from an engineering and economic point of view. The atmospheric carbon cycle is quite slow so that changes in emissions now will only have an effect in some decades time. For carbon abatement to have an impact, if the proponents views are correct, will require draconian measures applied internationally. I doubt that the Chinese will cease burning coal and if they do not they will overwhelm any potential abatement in Europe. Thus I conclude that half hearted carbon abatement is futile and draconian abatement is impractical.

  A sound course of action is to maintain a strong economy and to adapt to the changing climate as we do to other variations in circumstances. We should also for reasons of energy security seek to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels which we import from unstable regions of the world, but this might mean burning more coal or buying oil derived from Canadian oil shale. It would almost certainly mean maintaining or increasing our nuclear capacity.

  Over a time scale of some decades I believe that technology will abate the need for fossil hydrocarbon fuels by substitution from solar sources either in the form of solar electric or biomass. Globally solar energy is abundant (see the Sceptical Environmentalist by Lundgren) and there is more than enough to fuel the international economy once we have the technology to tap it.

  In summary my view is that the environmentalists approach to Climate Change is based on belief rather than analysis, that a grant fuelled industry has grown up around that belief which makes it self reinforcing and that the appropriate stance for those charged with serious decision making is scepticism and appropriate contingency planning rather than conversion to the faith.

  I hope these brief notes are helpful. I can offer copies of a power point presentation on the topic I gave to the RCDS but not until I return to the UK on 6th June.

  I hope that the Conservative party will adopt a determinedly rational approach to this topic in contrast to foolish positions taken by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.

  Regards,

  Prof Philip Hutchinson FREng DL

• Posted by Amy Cope, 14:42, Mon 29 May 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I do agree that climate change is one of the most serious problems facing mankind.

  I agree with several points raised in previous comments, especially about the US ignoring the situation. As with most political issues, I know its not as black and white as I would like it to be, every action has an equal (although sometimes greater) reaction.

  Try as the UK government may, without the support of countries like the US and China, the problem fails to disappear.

  I would like to see a greater move towards renewable energy, and a promise supporting this. I would also like to see Hybrid cars supported more, either by lowering taxes on them, or some sort of government support.

  Another thing I feel would help is more and better education for young people, on the causes of, and solutions to Climate change. Having just come out of the Education system, I having been told little on any political issues, let alone the ones that are continual like climate change.

  Oil companies should be made responsible for their actions, and the consumers shouldn't have to pay, although it is one way of cutting down emmissions.

  I know it is not possible for us to become like Iceland, but I think we should look at what they have done, how they have done it, and try to use their ideals to shape what we want done to solve the problem.

  Climate change is a human problem, and although the environment can change and adapt, humans tend to need more time then we have allocated before it is too late.

  On the exagaration point, every argument is subject to hyperbole, so there is no objective argument especially on subjects such as this.

  I would to hear feedback on the conference if that is possible.

• Posted by Mike Perks, 19:40, Mon 29 May 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I agree fully with the all comments by Prof Philip Hutchinson FREng DL regarding the human contribution to global warming and what should be done in response to glbal warming.

  I believe we need to separate the need to be frugal with the finite resource of fossil hydrocarbons from a King Canute like obsession with trying to stop global warming. Indeed we should be grateful that we are getting a warmer climate rather than plunging into another Ice Age.

  There seems to be an unhealthy interest in pricing people with low incomes out of car ownership and air travel in the name of global warming, while demanding that unseasonal, non-essential food (e.g. green beans, baby sweet corn, peas from Kenya) is flown in from all around the globe. We should start by reducing food miles beore restricting people's freedom of movement by price. We should also try and be less wasteful in our consumption and make our clothes, cars and appliances last longer rather than replacing them with the latest model before they are worn out. But then that would be bad for the economy and not generate tax....

  And those conferences on global warming held in exotic locations - how do the delegates get there? By bike? Overland train and bus? Or by air and taxi? I would like to see such conferences leading by example and using the same modes of transport that we are being requested to use in the name of global warming, or even using net or video conferencing methods where possible to reduce travel.

  Before we can be weaned off our cars we need a viable alternative method of transport. That means proper cycle routes separate from roads - there's no point in just narrowing roads to provide a strip for cyclists. For longer journeys we need buses and trains that run to and from where we need to go when we need to travel. In addition they need to be comfortable, safe, affordable and reliable.

  If we are going to worry about carbon dioxide emissions we should also remember the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the manufacture of cement, both from the energy required to bake the lime and the carbon dioxide released from the calcium carbonate during the process.

  It is too easy to blame the Oil companies - they are only providing what we want to use at a price we are prepared to pay. Fuel is only one product of many from a barrel of crude oil. Are people prepared to reduce their use of plastics and man-made fibres in line with their fuel? The Government should help with recovering and recycling material made from oil, other than just burning it.

  As Prof Philip Hutchinson says, we should reduce our dependance on hydrocarbon fuel imported from unstable regions. We still have a lot of coal and we should look at ways of utilising it cleanly and efficiently and not pursue the red herring of those dreadful windmills. We also need to use nuclear technology for generating reliable power.

  I would like to hear about the conference proceedings.

• Posted by Mike Perks, 20:40, Mon 29 May 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Dear Ed, The problem with discussing environmental issues is that there is a mantra that must be obeyed. As an example from one previous comment: "In most journeys in Oxfordshire, it is cheaper to drive places than take the train". The response has to be: Oxfordshire? What Train? From Where? Going To? For train also substitute "Bus" The continual bleat that it's the fault of the car does not hold water. In my working year in pest control, I drive appro 27K miles, the majority if this is into Oxford hospitals. The rest of the time, my private mileage, is to visit an aged relative in East Sussex, (train?) or the occasional shop in the Oxford Covered Market; A great place to shop (if you can beat the traffic system) and better than any supermarket. I can assure anyone that I prefer not to be driving - anywhere-.

  Next Mantra; Buy a more environmentaly responsible vehicle: Most of the polution of the motor car is in it's manufacture, stop making new ones and start responsibly repairing the old ones makes environmental sense. This also reduces waste disposal.

  Another Mantra: It's A Crime Drive A Car!! (Usually heard from those living in central London). When the "Greens" scream about glaciers melting, they forget that before the ice age there were no glaciers (ask the Vikings when they had their Greenland settlement destroyed in the Mini Ice Age whether they should have traveled less?) So as we move away from that era why shouldn't the glaciers melt? If we also accept that the "Green" rules will not apply to China, the Third World as a whole and not forgetting the USA, Co2 reduction in the UK is a joke. As an aside, good and affordable public transport would be wonderful (except in central Oxford where the buses choke you with diesel particulates), but given the nature of Oxfordshire, probably not achievable. One last thing, heating lime to make cement creats huge quantities of Co2, perhaps we should stop concreting over the South East? This would also help Thames Water? Oh yes, building on flood plains is also a great and novel idea - as is breathing less.

  Rant Over - for now.

  Mike Perks.

• Posted by Rob Harper, 15:26, Tue 30 May 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  We know from observation that the global mean temperature has increased over the last few decades. Whether this is entirely natural, resulting from man's actions, or some combination of these is up for debate -- the evidence I have seen suggests that it is a combination of factors, and this is potentially a big problem for us.

  We also know that fossil fuels are a limited resource, and we rely on other nations for most of our supplies. Sooner or later even those supplies will run dry, and until then I very much doubt the prices will fall.

  I believe it is our responsibility to both minimise our impact on the environment (which is enormous even if we do not contribute greatly to global warming), and as such we should look seriously at reducing our polluting emissions. Serious investigation into alternative power sources should be a major part of this.

  It is often argued that until the USA, China, the developing world, and so on, make serious cuts in their own pollution, anything we do in the UK would be pointless. I have three main arguments against that...

  * Improvements have to start somewhere. We cannot simply sit back waiting to follow the lead of the current giants. If we start now, we won't be having to catch up later, and we can have a clean conscience.

  * If we invest heavily into cleaner and more efficient technologies, by the time the rest of the world moves in the same direction (as they must when oil becomes too expensive) we will be world leaders in the technology and will be able to sell our expertise abroad.

  * Investments in alternatives to oil will make us less reliant on supplies from abroad and will reduce the effects like the sudden rises in petrol prices we have seen in recent years.

  Thanks for your attention.

  Rob

• Posted by Edward Vaizey, 14:56, Thu 1 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Thank you for posting your thoughts on climate change. As you will have seen, there have been a variety of views put forward. As I expected, they were all well informed and some from very distinguished experts.

  I agree that it was absurd for us to fly to Canada for this conference - but we did offset our emissions. And we learned a lot about the position in Canada.

  First, they will not meet their Kyoto target - by a long way. Which reinforces the view that setting targets is not a solution in itself. The UK will meet its targets, mainly because we moved rapidly from coal to gas in the 1990s, but that brings its own problems in temrs of energy security.

  I think we are ahead of Canada in thinking about policy - emissions trading, which we pioneered and is now being established in Europe; fiscal incentives; public awareness; and the price of energy itself. None of this is present in canada.

  We still have to tackle the big emissions, which must, I think, mean going nuclear, and continuing to support and invest in technology - hydro, wind, clean coal, hybrid vehicles.

  I also think the US and Canada are seeing climate change move up the agenda, and I think they will make great strides in the decade to come.

  But as several of you have pointed out that won't mean much if China and India do not make the same investments.

Commenting on this message is now disabled.