Posted by: Jose | December 8, 2006

Gordon Brown or how to please both sides of the problem

There is a very interesting discussion at http://mrzhisou.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/green-from-brown/

Whose reading I recommend. Exchange of ideas in environmental problems might lead us finally to a conclusion of which is the best to solve them.

What a government must not say is try to convince us that the measures it takes are conclusive to reach a solution, when it is clear that these measures, as those taken by Gordon Brown, will not propitiate the reduction of carbon emissions.

If Gordon Brown had said the British government was considering the likelihood of changing to cleaner alternative energies, then that would be starting to work properly, but what he proposes in my opinion just makes contamination dearer and there is no reduction in emissions in perspective.

Posted in Environment

« Announcement for today
Dictators »

Responses

“What a government must not say is try to convince us that the measures it takes are conclusive to reach a solution,”

You’re right, Canarislander. Gordon Brown has done just that. He has presented this “eco-package” proudly, almost as being a be-all-and-end-all solution. This is misleading and dangerous as it could present a false sense of hope or complacency.

What’s needed are radical but unpopular measures because although people are catching on to climate change and are slowly and minimally changing their behaviour accordingly, voluntary participation is just not reliable enough. Nor is it fast enough (especially with big businesses). We simply don’t have the time.

Therefore, stronger economic incentives, along with serious legislation is needed at all levels…individual/domestic, corporate, industrial and so on. But especially towards civil aviation and the car industry/users. And with heavy-handed financical punishments for those who breach the carbon laws…
Grant schemes for the less well-off to make their homes energy-efficient…
Government investment into apprenticeship schemes for trained /skilled tradesmen in all the new Green technologies…solar panel and turbine fitting/maintenance…
More investment in renewables and bio-fuels to clean up power stations…….on it goes.

These aren’t my suggestions. They come from the environmental lobbyists and the climate change scientists. The government has no excuse. It is receiving expert advice.

By: earthpal on December 10, 2006
at 2:02 pm

I see, Earthpal, you have fully got in mind what is needed for an overhaul in our environment-damaging customs. And when I say “our” that means everybody, people of the street and people sitting in comfortable leather armchairs.

I know, as you do, that this is not easy to carry out, that jobs could be lost at the beginning, but the capitalistic system has resources enough to compensate.

What is imperative, and it isn’t me either who say so but scientists around the world, is that steps to reduce industrial emissions be taken rightaway, lest Nature takes revenge on all of us.

By: canarislander on December 10, 2006
at 9:39 pm

“Lest Nature takes revenge on all of us” - I assume, Jose, you are familiar with the Gaia Theory…?

By: Richard on December 11, 2006
at 9:53 am

How nice to see an olde friend “Earthpal” participating on this forum.

Not only should be we looking to reduce carbon emissions but we should be actively trying to lock up the carbon that’s already there. I suggest a Government sponsored tree planting event, we could start with Salisbury Plain if the military has finished with it. We could restore it to the same condition that it had 3,000 years ago.
People like me would be more than happy to start propagating trees from seeds and would happily travel down there and plant them.
Let’s also think about paying people in Brazil to plant more , the same people that make money by cutting them down.

By: michaeloxford on December 11, 2006
at 10:11 am

I am not, Richard, but I’ll have a look.

Michael, you have a point there, felling trees down for money should always be compensated by planting new ones by the same people, to the ratio of 1 :: 10, at least. And not only in Brazil but also anywhere else in the world.

And cutting trees down should also cost them money in suitable taxes.

By: canarislander on December 12, 2006
at 8:31 am

Hey Michael…this is a great site and I am enjoying your contributions, as always. Hope you are well.

You raised some good suggestions. We have to create economic incentives (along with serious financial penalties to the corporate giants who abuse their carbon allowances).

Canarislander, carbon offsetting sounds like an ideal part of the solution and it’s becoming big business. But we have to be careful because it carries the risk that people will believe it will neutralise their carbon footprint and therefore negate the need to change their behaviour.

I am truly all in favour of tree-planting ventures and Michael’s idea is great but instead of offsetting for every tree we cut down or every flight we take, shouldn’t we be trying to cut back on our emissions? Offsetting has its place when emissions are unavoidable, but alone, it won’t solve climate change. And it may give people a false belief that they can emit and consume at their convenience.

By: earthpal on December 13, 2006
at 3:14 pm

There are places in the world where large mud slides occur which could be prevented by planting trees. Trees not only are of help in keeping oxygen but in strengthening the soil to prevent these slides, which so much damage cause in zones.

By: canarislander on December 14, 2006
at 6:15 am

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories