This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7746126.stm
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Coughing up to curb climate change | Coughing up to curb climate change |
| (about 7 hours later) | |
| VIEWPOINT Peter Lilley | VIEWPOINT Peter Lilley |
| The UK's Climate Change Bill, which commits future governments to cut CO2 emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, is about to receive Royal Assent but at what cost? Peter Lilley MP asks why ministers failed to mention that the legislation could cost each family in the UK up to £10,000. | The UK's Climate Change Bill, which commits future governments to cut CO2 emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, is about to receive Royal Assent but at what cost? Peter Lilley MP asks why ministers failed to mention that the legislation could cost each family in the UK up to £10,000. |
| Neither Parliament nor most of the media bothered to discuss the cost of one of the most immense projects ever adopted in this country Can you spare £10,000 for a good cause? The government thinks you can - despite the recession. | Neither Parliament nor most of the media bothered to discuss the cost of one of the most immense projects ever adopted in this country Can you spare £10,000 for a good cause? The government thinks you can - despite the recession. |
| Parliament passed the Climate Change Bill, which is set to receive Royal Assent in the coming days, which will force you to cough up. | Parliament passed the Climate Change Bill, which is set to receive Royal Assent in the coming days, which will force you to cough up. |
| This legislation binds future British governments to introduce unilaterally, even if other countries do not follow suit, massive spending programmes which could cost up to £200bn; that's £10,000 from every family in the country. | This legislation binds future British governments to introduce unilaterally, even if other countries do not follow suit, massive spending programmes which could cost up to £200bn; that's £10,000 from every family in the country. |
| I'm not talking about rescuing the banks. That involved loans which we should eventually get back. This is real money in taxes and lost incomes - money you will never see again. | I'm not talking about rescuing the banks. That involved loans which we should eventually get back. This is real money in taxes and lost incomes - money you will never see again. |
| The bank rescue was to save the economy. This is to save the planet. | The bank rescue was to save the economy. This is to save the planet. |
| Costing the Earth | Costing the Earth |
| Hold on! I hear you exclaim. No-one asked us if we could afford £10,000. We haven't heard anything about a £200 billion package. That's enormous. | Hold on! I hear you exclaim. No-one asked us if we could afford £10,000. We haven't heard anything about a £200 billion package. That's enormous. |
| That's right; it is enormous and you didn't hear anything about it. That is the scandal. | That's right; it is enormous and you didn't hear anything about it. That is the scandal. |
| Neither Parliament nor most of the media bothered to discuss the cost of one of the most immense projects ever adopted in this country. Indeed, Parliament wafted it through without even discussing its cost and with only five votes against. Would you insure your home with a company if they charged premiums which could be double the value of your house? | Neither Parliament nor most of the media bothered to discuss the cost of one of the most immense projects ever adopted in this country. Indeed, Parliament wafted it through without even discussing its cost and with only five votes against. Would you insure your home with a company if they charged premiums which could be double the value of your house? |
| In my experience, our biggest mistakes are made when Parliament and the media are virtually unanimous and MPs switch off their critical faculties in a spasm of moral self-congratulation. That is what happened with this Bill. | In my experience, our biggest mistakes are made when Parliament and the media are virtually unanimous and MPs switch off their critical faculties in a spasm of moral self-congratulation. That is what happened with this Bill. |
| We all want to save the planet from overheating, just as we all want to save the financial system from meltdown. We accept that both rescues may cost us a lot. | We all want to save the planet from overheating, just as we all want to save the financial system from meltdown. We accept that both rescues may cost us a lot. |
| But a healthy democracy should at least debate the cost, compare it with the likely benefits (or costs of doing nothing) and consider whether we can achieve the same ends at less cost. | But a healthy democracy should at least debate the cost, compare it with the likely benefits (or costs of doing nothing) and consider whether we can achieve the same ends at less cost. |
| Had MPs or commentators bothered to read the government's own estimates of the potential costs and benefits of the Climate Change Bill - the Impact Assessment - they would have found some extraordinary things. | Had MPs or commentators bothered to read the government's own estimates of the potential costs and benefits of the Climate Change Bill - the Impact Assessment - they would have found some extraordinary things. |
| Admittedly, on this occasion government failed to publish copies of the assessment in the normal way so it took a little effort to obtain. Apparently, I was the only MP to obtain a copy. | Admittedly, on this occasion government failed to publish copies of the assessment in the normal way so it took a little effort to obtain. Apparently, I was the only MP to obtain a copy. |
| False economy | False economy |
| The contents of the Impact Assessment are astounding. Whereas it puts the Bill's potential cost as up to £205bn, it says the maximum benefits of this massive expenditure is £110bn. | The contents of the Impact Assessment are astounding. Whereas it puts the Bill's potential cost as up to £205bn, it says the maximum benefits of this massive expenditure is £110bn. |
| I am all in favour of taking out an insurance policy, as the government describes it, against the threat of global warming. | I am all in favour of taking out an insurance policy, as the government describes it, against the threat of global warming. |
| But would you insure your home with a company if they charged premiums which could be double the value of your house? There must be a better insurance policy than this. | But would you insure your home with a company if they charged premiums which could be double the value of your house? There must be a better insurance policy than this. |
| Moreover, the government admits that their estimate of the "maximum" cost is far from being the real maximum since it omits three huge items. | Moreover, the government admits that their estimate of the "maximum" cost is far from being the real maximum since it omits three huge items. |
| First, the Impact Assessment admits that it is "unable to capture transition costs which could be 1.3% to 2% of GDP in 2020". | First, the Impact Assessment admits that it is "unable to capture transition costs which could be 1.3% to 2% of GDP in 2020". |
| Second, they make the fantastically optimistic assumption that all businesses will know and instantly adopt the most cost efficient technologies to achieve carbon savings. The government's own assessment contradicts the Stern Review At-a-glance: Stern Review | Second, they make the fantastically optimistic assumption that all businesses will know and instantly adopt the most cost efficient technologies to achieve carbon savings. The government's own assessment contradicts the Stern Review At-a-glance: Stern Review |
| Third, the assessment "cannot capture trade and competitiveness impacts"; in particular, the "relatively high risks of the transfer of productive capital to countries without carbon policies". | Third, the assessment "cannot capture trade and competitiveness impacts"; in particular, the "relatively high risks of the transfer of productive capital to countries without carbon policies". |
| In other words, if we pursue the policies in the Climate Change Bill unilaterally, without others doing the same, we could end up driving UK business abroad without reducing carbon emissions because they will still be spewing forth carbon. | In other words, if we pursue the policies in the Climate Change Bill unilaterally, without others doing the same, we could end up driving UK business abroad without reducing carbon emissions because they will still be spewing forth carbon. |
| Yet this bill legally binds future British governments unilaterally to spend billions of pounds on trying to prevent climate change even if other countries do not follow our lead. | Yet this bill legally binds future British governments unilaterally to spend billions of pounds on trying to prevent climate change even if other countries do not follow our lead. |
| There is a case for Britain taking the lead, but the bill should surely only become binding if a critical mass of other countries follow our lead; we cannot save the planet single-handed. | There is a case for Britain taking the lead, but the bill should surely only become binding if a critical mass of other countries follow our lead; we cannot save the planet single-handed. |
| The bill originally bound governments by law to meet targets for reducing carbon emissions by 26% by 2020 and 60% by 2050. | The bill originally bound governments by law to meet targets for reducing carbon emissions by 26% by 2020 and 60% by 2050. |
| The new climate minister, Ed Miliband, amended it to raise the final target by a third to 80% - thereby increasing the likely cost by at least a third, although no-one deigned to mention this. He has refused to reveal the extra cost until after the bill becomes law. | The new climate minister, Ed Miliband, amended it to raise the final target by a third to 80% - thereby increasing the likely cost by at least a third, although no-one deigned to mention this. He has refused to reveal the extra cost until after the bill becomes law. |
| These are pretty onerous targets, yet the UN says Britain will fall far short of our existing target to cut 20% off the 1990 level of carbon emissions by 2010. | These are pretty onerous targets, yet the UN says Britain will fall far short of our existing target to cut 20% off the 1990 level of carbon emissions by 2010. |
| Climate activists hope that making the new targets legally binding will somehow ensure they will be met. They clearly believe that if only King Canute had passed a law requiring the tide to go out, it would have done so! | Climate activists hope that making the new targets legally binding will somehow ensure they will be met. They clearly believe that if only King Canute had passed a law requiring the tide to go out, it would have done so! |
| The new law will not punish ministers if they fail to achieve these targets. The sole effect of enshrining the targets in statute will be to open government policies to judicial review. Judges will then assess whether current measures will achieve the targets. | The new law will not punish ministers if they fail to achieve these targets. The sole effect of enshrining the targets in statute will be to open government policies to judicial review. Judges will then assess whether current measures will achieve the targets. |
| I have little faith in any government's ability to meet those targets cost effectively. But empowering judges to prescribe additional measures costing billions of pounds, without being accountable to the electorate, is a recipe for huge additional costs. | I have little faith in any government's ability to meet those targets cost effectively. But empowering judges to prescribe additional measures costing billions of pounds, without being accountable to the electorate, is a recipe for huge additional costs. |
| Stern words | Stern words |
| The oddest thing about the government's cost/benefit analysis is that it contradicts the Stern Review. | The oddest thing about the government's cost/benefit analysis is that it contradicts the Stern Review. |
| Sir Nicholas Stern concluded that the cost of preventing climate change would be small relative to the benefits. | Sir Nicholas Stern concluded that the cost of preventing climate change would be small relative to the benefits. |
| Yet the Impact Assessment reveals that the costs could dwarf the potential benefits. | Yet the Impact Assessment reveals that the costs could dwarf the potential benefits. |
| The Stern Review was much criticised for resorting to unprecedented means to inflate the benefits artificially. | The Stern Review was much criticised for resorting to unprecedented means to inflate the benefits artificially. |
| In particular, he used an astonishingly low discount rate thereby giving a huge weight to benefits that will not accrue until centuries ahead. In fact, half the benefits he expects will not occur until after the year 2800! | In particular, he used an astonishingly low discount rate thereby giving a huge weight to benefits that will not accrue until centuries ahead. In fact, half the benefits he expects will not occur until after the year 2800! |
| Ministers have admitted to me that their Impact Assessment rejected Stern's dubious figures and used conventional discount rates. | Ministers have admitted to me that their Impact Assessment rejected Stern's dubious figures and used conventional discount rates. |
| Yet they still quote Stern's conclusions to justify their Bill and never mention their own more recent calculations. | Yet they still quote Stern's conclusions to justify their Bill and never mention their own more recent calculations. |
| What a disgrace that our legislators failed to scrutinise and amend this Bill as rigorously as the US Congress examined the Paulson package before agreeing it. | What a disgrace that our legislators failed to scrutinise and amend this Bill as rigorously as the US Congress examined the Paulson package before agreeing it. |
| If the Impact Assessment is right and Stern wrong there is a strong case for spending more of taxpayers' billions on adapting to climate change and less on trying to prevent it, but we will not have that option. | If the Impact Assessment is right and Stern wrong there is a strong case for spending more of taxpayers' billions on adapting to climate change and less on trying to prevent it, but we will not have that option. |
| Peter Lilley is Conservative MP for Hitchin and Harpenden | Peter Lilley is Conservative MP for Hitchin and Harpenden |
| The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website | The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website |
| Do you agree with Peter Lilley? Do the potential costs of the Climate Change Bill outweight the benefits of cutting carbon emissions? Have politicians and the media failed to properly scrutinise the proposals? Do you think the risks posed by climate change need to be tackled at any cost? | Do you agree with Peter Lilley? Do the potential costs of the Climate Change Bill outweight the benefits of cutting carbon emissions? Have politicians and the media failed to properly scrutinise the proposals? Do you think the risks posed by climate change need to be tackled at any cost? |
| Thats right, lets have another 10 years debate Mr Lilley. Maybe the world will have decayed irreparably by then, and we wont have to bother to do anything. I cant remember having much choice in bailing out the criminally irresponsible banks. But you tories dont need to worry about that, do you?James Savill, Norwich | |
| Stern points out that climate change is the "greatest externality" the world has seen. Lilley is right to encourage us to challenge decisions and long term investment plans, but he seems to be in the wait and see camp of valuing our generation far more than those of the future by putting our own current consumption and the costs of it before action to tackle the continuing growth in emissions. It seems a strange world in which we as parents spend huge amounts of time and money doing the best for our children for their future but we argue not to tackle the issues of emissions now. In taking a wait and see approach about the optimality of choices whilst emissions continue to grow, we place our own needs above those of our children and their children. I applaud the 80% emissions reduction target. We must now hold our Government accountable to ensuring that the actions are taken to achieve it.RJ, Inverness, UK | |
| Considering that it daesn't make a halfpence worth of difference what we do here this is a bit rich. It is really just a measure to get greater power over the people of this country. Undoubtedly it will send business abroad to more enlightened goverment. Why do the people of the UK tolerate these idiots?Michael Stuart, Stoke Poges | |
| Mr. Lilley's figures are well manipulated. If the predicted costs are £205bn, and the potential benefits £110bn, actual expenditure per family will be around £6000. This will be spread over 40 years, making the annual cost per family around £150. I would like to see Mr. Lilley's proposed figures on "adapting to climate change", rather than "trying to prevent it".chrisb, amsterdam, NL | |
| Climate change is "a good cause"? What planet is this man living on? Trying to tackle climate change is not a "good cause"; if we don't throw everything we have at it, life as we know it on this planet will come to an end - and already has for those affected by the increase in weather-related disasters. It's as simple as that. This man is obviously a climate change denier - I just hope that he lives near the coast so that when the sea levels start to rise he's one of the first to properly see its effects. This is nothing more than a ridiculous piece of politcal scaremongering, as usual just the Conservatives trying to score points against Labour.Sarah, Bristol, UK | |
| So what is the cost of not doing anything about the climate?Jan Deventer, Newcastle | |
| £10,000 between now and 2050 is roughly £250 per year or £21 per month to save the planet. I'll happily pay that., | |
| At last, a balanced and sensible article. Not only is the 'flat earth global warming consensus' utter rubbish, an 80% cut in energy consumption will put us all out of business. Only 5 MPs questioned the Bill! They will quickly change their tune when the country grinds to a halt and then freezes over (likely if the present cooling continues). Mark, Coventry / UK | |
| What a poor misguided fool Peter Lilley is. Conventional economic wisdom is so unbelievably flawed that it pays no heed to environmental concerns, Discounted Cash Flows used to calculate future costs are also not appropriate. The Stearn review was at least brave enough to point this out and use a more realistic set of costs. It is for cheaper to do what we need to do now - a stitch in time saves nine!!!Jo Dicks, Cambridge | |
| This is scaremongering. £10,000 spread over the next 42 years is about 65p per day per household. This is less than the value of food thrown away by the average household according to recent figures. "Would you insure your home with ... premiums ... double the value of your house?" No, but many people do this for their car. House insurance is mostly directed towards preserving the value of one's own property, but spending on fighting climate change is more like car insurance in which remediation of damage to others is an important feature. In this case the others are future generations beyond 2050.Andrew, Durham | |
| saving the planet is going to be expensive, but if we dont do it we will all die. therefore the money has to be found, somehow. we trashed the enviroment, therefore we should fix it. more of the cost should be put on the giant corparations that created so much of the pollution.Ben Chapman, high wycombe | |
| All these so-called climate solutions are pointless, regardless of what you think of the pseudo-science of MMGW. Why? Because the world's population keeps increasing. They estimate it'll go up by 40% by 2050. And most of that 40% will be in developing countries that will have to produce loads of CO2 to develop. Even the most severe CO2 restrictions planned by the UK will be dwarfed by the world-wide population increase. A significant decrease in population growth is a necessary precursor to virtually all environmental policies if they are to be successful. They're fairly pointless otherwise.Gordon Ansell, Taunton, UK | |
| Just tipical poloticians approve laws with long binding conciquences that will cost the average person living in Britian vast amounts of personal money £10,000 plus the cost of the credit crunch, enviromental issus £210bn? eventhough most of the EU wont go that farChris Bowden, Stockport Cheshire | |
| This bill was passed in a way I have come to expect generally from climate science. No opposition is allowed, and no one mentions the fact that the whole hypothesis rests on evidence which is becoming increasingly shaky. There has been no warming of the planet since 1998, in spite of continual human CO2 emissions. The model predictions which are meant to show warming are increasingly diverging from reality. Huge statistical errors have been found in the proxy data which was supposed to show that current temperatures are unprecedented. In spite of this all political authorities, and the BBC, continue to insist that global warming is happening - increasingly against the evidence of our own senses. What will it take to show that it is not?T Massingham, Gloucester | |
| Without a global communal pull towards cutting CO2 the UK will almost certainly be wasting her time by cutting emissions by 80% of 1990 levels. The thought that we are somehow taking the moral high ground by "leading" the charge to fight global warming is laughable in a post industrial nation. The British people should seek to join in any and all resonable initiatives to try to use the resources of the Earth as sustainably as possible and we should be ready to open our doors and our hearts to those who need our help because they have been dispossessed due to the effects of climate change. Peter Lilley is right to question the validity of Parliments response if only Charles were King perhaps Royal Assent would not be so forth coming? Gx Mr Gryff, London | |
| As usual this is a completely fatuous pollitical slant on what should be a non political argument. Where was Mr Lilley during the Nuclear debate? Building and Decommissioning of Nuclear stations costs Billions of Pounds on a level greater than he quotes in this article. There will never be effecient 'Green' policies by any government in the UK unless someone has the Backbone to take unpopular decisions such as properly taxing the gas guzzling 'vanity vehicles' seen on the roads and air travel has comparable taxation to road vehicles. I do agree that the action needs to be multinational, but if we continue to 'brown nose' to China and America; that will never happen.Mark Wiles, Cambridge | |
| I agree with Peter Lilley. There is no point in burdening the tax payer with goals that cannot be achieved. Other countries such as India and China have to adopt carbon reducing policies to make any real impact. This is more about appeasing the minority green lobby at any cost than dealing with sensible real issues.David Hudleston, Ventnor UK | |
| It is quite refreshing to see an MP admit that MP's collectively do not cast a critical eye over legislation that is popular at a given time - and at this time climate change is all the rage. I cannot believe that the UK, and the world at large, is so universally behind following the whim of a 70's Scandanavian scientist who first suggested that "global warming" could be a means to counter falling temperatures in the 70 years or so of the 20th century. Carbon emissions are a prime example of wasted resources as reducing this small proportion of the atmosphere by an even smaller percentage is a futile exercise. Isolated areas where air quality is a problem - Beijing, Shanghai etc - need to be addressed but mainly to safeguard the health of their huge populations. Sustainability and climate change are two different issues, and they need to be clearly identified as such. Sustainability is the real key issue that needs to be addressed with investment and intelligent design. Climate change is something that cannot be conclusively proven and yet has spawned a world wide industry that employs millions. It is nothing short of a disgrace that, in a world where billions of people live in poverty and millions more die of disease, the so called "good guys" of the green lobby have persuaded governments the world over to pump vast sums of money into a fad instead of addressing real issues and dangers faced by the world at large. Al Gore has a lot to answer for.Kevin Jones, Dubai | |
| Of course I don't agree. The fact that he refuses to grasp the scale of the threat we face is indefensible. There is enough evidence that 'adapting' just is not an option on its own because we are already committed to spending a fortune adapting to the warming already in the pipeline. And the hidden premise here is that climate change is linear, it's not and there are some really nasty surprises coming. I find it really odd that those of us with the good sense to want to 'save the planet', in other words provide a healthy environment for our children, are seen as dreamers or even worst 'activists' (there's plenty of evidence that environmental protesters are being spun as terrorists) whilst those that count the beans are shrewd and practical. Recent events have shown what a nonsense that world view is. What we need is a radical restructuring of our economy so that it is not dependent on the dream (or rather nightmare) that exponential growth is sustainable long term. I think the image of the set of scales from Al Gore's film is appropriate here: planet on one side; money on the other. Trying to claim we can't afford to save the planet is a total nonsequitur, to quote his ex-mistress 'there is no alternative'.Roly, London, UK | |
| Peter Lilley reveals how shallow his analysis is with this remark: "They (Climate activists) clearly believe that if only King Canute had passed a law requiring the tide to go out, it would have done so". The simple truth is that we cannot afford to ignore climate change, if we do so the costs of adaptation in the future will be far greater - involving unprecedented loss of life. Crucially, by moving to low carbon sources of energy, generated here in the UK, we reduce the balance of payments deficit, provide energy security to UK business, protect the economy and greatly enhance our national security. There is a lot more at stake here than he pretends.Jon Fuller, Westcliff on Sea | |
| Peter Lilley falls into the trap of considering action on climate change as a course of action with realistic, plausible alternatives - The benefits the Stern report highlights are the benefits we accrue from still having access to a fully functioning biosphere. The alternative to action on climate change is almost certain economic collapse as the ability of our planet to support out growing population is degraded. Rather than worrying about the potential benfits of acting on the changing climate, he should consider the consequencs of failing to do so.Charles Robinson, Brighton | |
| Climate Change/economic conditions change...Stern was always a dubious guess at the future based on extrapolations which were questionable. Peter Lilley is right to comment that when the 'great the good and the wise' are all in agreement there's likely to be something wrong...so...no debate. The political risks of questioning the consensus made it impossible. The credit crunch has done some good by permitting 'respectable questioning' the money for climate change measures was all spent yesterday by Alistair Darling. The questioj is how to get it wound back.Robert Appleby, Uxbridge | |
| An excellent piece which deserves to reach a wide audience. Sadly it will "plop". The green lobby have captured governments. They in turn have sold most voters on thr idea that we must save the planet - where "we" is plucky little Britain. I fear they are also brainwashing children. Look at the eway climate change is treated in, for example, physics. Climate change looks set to replace race/immigration as the great "don't go there" of British politics. Is there any hope? Perhaps a little: when the lights go out, and the remaining manufacturing moves offshore, Ministers may just possibly find an excuse for changing this silly law.Robin Willis, London | |
| Rarely is there anything with which I would agree with Peter Lilley on but it happens that this is one of those occasions. That the environment is important is undoubted but to legislate in this way, a extreme unilateral binding commitment, gives industry the certainty that investing in the UK will be expensive. Whilst in decades to come others may follow in similar vein in the intervening period the only certainty is UK is expensive to invest in. This bill is a stick - there are no carrots. You either invest in 'green' equipment or pay sky high carbon costs - the third option of you invest elsewhere instead where the costs are lower seems to have been missed by DoE mandarins.Neil, Basingstoke | |
| I have rarely heard such a nationalistic, narrow-minded argument. Lilley entirely ignores any effects of climate change other than those that would happen to the economy in this country - presumably it will be ok by him if S.Asia is flooded, Africa desertified, millions of people killed and displaced, species wiped out, as long as the unsustainable lifestyles of the white middle classes is the UK go unaffected? Not that they would anyway. Are there any effects other than financial that Lilley would consider worth putting into his equation? Is it entirely out of the question that there should be a moral obligation for the richest and most polluting countries whose wealth is built on 250 years of over-pollution to do the most to avoid such utter destruction? Tackling climate change is going to be the biggest challenge my generation shall face, Peter Lilley has shown himself entirely unprepared for it. His attitude is entirely selfish and outdated, happy to screw the planet, his children, the rest of the world, and to hell with the consequences.Tim Halpin, Coventry | |
| Contrary to popular opinion, we do not rely on this illusory beast "the economy" to keep us alive, we rely on the resources provided by the planet we live on. When you say the climate change bill is "a good cause" and it will "save the planet" you clearly misunderstand the meaning of the words you say. They have become meaningless through overuse, so let me enlighten you. For "a good cause" read saving the lives of people alive today, for "the planet" read human civilisation as we know it. Climate change is not some vague, abstract concept that will affect generations to come in far away places, it is affecting people in the UK (anyone remember the floods?) and even more so in warmer countries. According to George Monbiot's book Heat, climate change is already causing the deaths of 150,000 a year. Economics utterly fails to account for everything important in life and therefore we cannot use it as a manufactured excuse for not taking the urgently required action proposd in the climate change bill. The crux is that continual growth is incompatible with the system of finite resources on which we rely for wellbeing. Additionally, according to measures of human welbeing like nef's Happy Planet Index, once our basic needs (food, shelter etc) have been met, it doesn't make us any happier. The sooner we all realise this the better.E Hardman, London, UK | |
| While we have MPs who see dealing with Climate Change as nothing more than a "good cause" what hope is there for mankind?Phil, Cornwall | |
| There is no stopping climate change. Now there can be no support from government to adapt to it. If you want your children and your children's children to survive, you must do everything within your power to try and adapt now, relying only on yourself and God without redress to imperfect man-made systems, like government. M. D. Dunderdale, Nõo, Estonia | |
| A lot of what we need to do to adapt to climate change is supposed to be about working regionally instead of nationally, working sustainably with resources, not gold-plating projects, working in social partnerships on transportation solutions. Using the mass market to make insulation work cheaper. It should be cheaper than what we're doing today. I'm not saying that it won't cost money . . .but its more a state of mind. I can't help but suspect we're doing it wrong, using technology and big government.James McLaren, Reading | |
| "The bank rescue was to save the economy. This is to save the planet". Although I'd rather save the planet than the banking system, I do, unusually, find myself agreeing with Peter Lilley. It will only work if all countries take action, assuming that it will work, of course (which is unproven). Far from reducing our GHG emissions, so far the UK has only succeeded in increasing them - the chances of us meeting that 80% reduction target are pretty remote. And as for the rest of the world... Take the current economic crisis - if you believe in cutting GHG emissions then it's wonderful for the environment! No-one is buying crap they don't really need that has been shipped halfway across the world, all of those carbon-emitting factories are closing down or reducing the days they operate, cars aren't being sold. But Governments are throwing their hands up in horror and desperately trying to boost the economy. There is no joined-up thinking. We need to sort out what our priorities are, and how much we're prepared to pay - a true cost/benefit analysis. Most of all we need a well-thought out energy policy.Tracy, Cheltenham, UK | |
| There is an argument for and against allowing the public to engage with such policies. The sad thing is, the EU on the whole has only just achieved a reduction in emissions in comparison with the 1990 baseline, when the initial Kyoto reduction was set at -6-7%. And this reduction is almost entirely due to the collapse of the Eastern block at this time, and the reduction in polluting industries (hence the reason for choosing the 1990 baseline to make even the UK look comparatively good at reducing carbon emissions). Many EU nations have continued to increase their emissions. Trying not to be pessimistic, surely it would have been better (and hopefully the legislation is coming shortly) to set concrete measures as targets rather than an arbitrary emissions reduction target. Why not set a target for 2025 that >50% UK homes to have installed solar panels, all new housing developments meet stricter energy and water efficiency, insulation rules, minimum 20% from renewables, ban old lightbulbs for energy efficient ones, ban "standby" functions on appliances etc etc. Adam, London / University College | |
| This Bill is an example of the collosal misallocation of resources to which the fallacy of CO2 induced "global warming" will lead. What temperature change there has been since 1975 was caused by solar activity and, since 1999, global temperature has gone nowhere. Please, God, give us a cold winter and perhaps people will begin to appreciate the insanity of this Bill and all the other measures like it that governments throughout the world are imposing in the foolish belief that the tiny proportion of CO2 that is produced by human activity is, by some unproven means, causing the climate change that is as natural as the changing seasons. Anthony Warburton, Birmingham | |
| But why on earth didn't Lilley make more of a fuss about it before it was too late? Why didn't he publicly support Lord Lawsons attempts at derailing it in the Lords? When we are reminded of the deal that our politicians 'thought' they had achieved in Brussels, regarding renewables and power generation, we really are like babes in the wood. john kelly, suffolk | |
| UK CO2 emissions have only fallen slightly since 1990 but if the CO2 emissions of imported goods are included then UK has been responsible for an increase in CO2 emissions. Does reducing UK direct emissions and increasing them elsewhere in the world help the climate- obviously not.Julius St Swithin, Cambridge | |
| The Labour party have,and will do anything and everything to completely bring the UK to rack and ruin and sod everyone else-when will other countries like China and the USA adopt the same measures over climate change?Labour is too much about `BROWN'than `GREEN'!Colin Humphries, Dorset | |
| People should start realising that looking after nature might very well have to be an expense. What is wrong with that? Nobody profits financially from maintaining their gardens⦠This comparison between looking after the environment and home insurance is a tragically poor one. It shows how out of touch whoever said it is with reality - The reality that if we want to take from nature we have to give something back as well. Nature is not there to be profited from unsustainably. It's about life.Arno Hayes, Cape Town, South Africa | |
| A lone voice of reason, lost in the babble of the eco-nutters. Thank you Peter, perhaps more of your collegues will have the conviction to speak out also.Dave Legge, Falkirk | |
| There is still a large body of opinion in scientific and other circles which believes that the whole 'carbon' scare is just that. Climate change happens ; a whole new industry has grown up over something which probably doesn't exist. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for conserving natural resources but giving the population (especially here in the UK of course) a guilt trip so that they feel they should switch off some lights, walk to work etc otherwise they will destroy the planet really should be seen for the con that it is. It is amazing that these expensive and probably futile proposals are just being nodded through. At least Peter Lilley had the sense to question this!Nick Blake, Darlington England | |
| How refreshing to hear an MP give an honest account. But then Peter Lilley is old school:- more honest that the current crop of thieves,rouges and liars that currently inhabit parliament. Climate change is a big tax con, designed to make you think that we are saving the planet. I am not saying that there hasnt been an increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but there would have been a lot less if we had preserved the rain forests and supported the peoples of the Amazon & other 3rd world areas financially. Just stop chopping the trees down from unsustainable sourcesJohn Bowles, Gosport,, England | |
| For Heaven's sake, BBC, get real on the climate and CO2. Following the diktats of AL Gore are leading you into a blind alley. An ever growing majority do not believe the AGW/CO2 scam and the science proves it to be a unsubstantiated. How are you going to get out of your self-embracing and ignorant AGW in-house policy? verwoodatlaoag@yahoo.com, Laoag City, Philippines | |
| Peter Lilley is a dinosaur, he says we should do nothing unless other countries do the same because it wont make a difference - that is akin to saying I'm not going to vote because it wont make a difference. Climate change denial is a real risk to our planet and our children, most representing that camp turn out to have vested interests in preventing change - I wonder what Peter Lilley's background is?Peter Thompson, London UK | |
| What global warming? We have just experienced two awful summers, with below average temperatures for most of this summer and the winter starting on very cold note. I would like to see a full debate from BOTH sides of the climate argument and full costs published of so called measures to be taken (big question, why won't they do this??). I, like many other people see it as a money raising exercise by this government. Come on, let us have EVERYTHING out in the open.Brian, Darlington UK | |
| I am not an expert on the ins and out of this policy but I do know that not acting now to cut carbon emmissions and try to mitigate the affects of global warming would be a disaster to humankind and a disaster for other life on this planet. I am just pleased that the government are commiting themselves and future governments to tackling this problem. If we waited for other countries to sign up to this policy it might be too late. Carl Harwatt, Leeds, England | |
| As we cause 2.5% of Greenhouse gassesw, even if we stop 100% of our emissions, what effect will it have? NONE. Why don't the politicians get their heads out of the clouds and propose schemes that will help the public not tax them till they squeek?Don Laing, Clydebank, Scotland | |
| What a disgrace that Peter Lilley cannot even see beyond the bottom of his wallet! The degradation of our global environment due to decades of greed-based policies by the likes of Peter Lilley will be catastrophic for future generations. The correct question is "would you invest £10,000 to help secure the future for your children, grandchildren and everyone who follows them?". Wake up Peter Lilley! We're not talking about benefits within the timescales of the next parliamentary session we're talking about preventing global disaster that will blight countless lifetimes and generations. Leyton Williams-Davies, Wales, UK | |
| I am strongly disagree with Peter Lilley, out of more reason as it is possible to writ here. I am also not sure from where Peter Lilley is taking the amount of £10,000 per family, as factors such as monetary inflation and population growth, seam not have been taken in to consideration in his calculation. However should we not take sufficient action; the costs to human health including the loss of life, and other damages to the economy due to freak wetter and flooding, introduced by climate change, will far outweigh the cost of the Climate Change Act of £200 billion, over 40 years.Moshe A. Stern Esq. Finalist Student BSc. Hons Environmental Sciences and Management, Wolverhampton United Kingdom | |
| Peter Lilley fails to acknowledge that fact the New Labour has a plan to reduce Britain's carbon emissions: close down power stations and not build new ones. This will directly and quickly lead to reductions of about 20% in CO2 emission and a return to the 3-day week. People then will no longer be able to fly or run cars. Businesses will relocate to polluting countries. As result Britain will have the lowest CO2 emission and largest negative growth of any G8 member. Brilliant! Ron, Cambridge | |
| 10,000 pounds over 42 years is 238 pounds per family per year, that's less than last years rises in fuel bills for those increasingly expensive fossil fuels have cost me. Paul, Manchester | |
| Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal: "The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence."--"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008 But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed." "Britain is poised to expand its coal mining industry, despite fears that the move will lead to a rise in climate change emissions and harm communities and the environment. Freedom of information requests and council records show that in the past 18 months 14 companies have applied to dig nearly 60 million tonnes of coal from 58 new or enlarged opencast mines. At least six coal-fired power stations are planned. The increase in mining will embarrass the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, who is arguing that Britain must reduce carbon emissions." --John Vidal, The Observer, 23 November 2008Brad Arnold, St Louis Park, USA | |
| I have never been convinced that our use of carbon based fuels were causing the globe to heat up. The whole thing is a politically driven idea to increase tax and the hold that this government and the Brussels dictatorship have on the people of Europe. The fact is that that the Green issues are the least worry to people who see their incomes slashed by taxes and fuel hikes that pay fat cats to be immune from the problem. The windmills that this gcovenment and the various Green parties so admire will never repay their innitial cost let alone replace the power stations that are at present in use. The various bodies that espouse the use of these costly and, frankly, hidious windmilly are either in the pay of the various companies who make them or have a dictatorial agenda of their own. If the cost of a saving is more than the saving them what is the purpose of making that move, as a consumer I will not be changing my car as the present one only coast a small amount for maintenance and the fuel where a new one will have a huge financial cost, huge maineneance cost and has an even bigger carbon footprint due to its recent build. Is it not time to build more nuclear power stations rather than rely on the fickleness of the wind?John Barton, Alnwick , England | |
| Peter Lilley is a Conservative MP. Of course his opinion will be to whinge about the current Government. Its his job and he has been elected to do so. When it comes to party politics, opinion pieces such as this should be given a seperate page on BBC Online and not dressed up to read like proper independent articles.Kevin, London | |
| Everyone knows that the 80% reduction target is pie in the sky. Without a very major breakthrough in, say, fusion power, or electricity storage capability combined with brilliant photovoltaic cells, there is absolutely no way it can be achieved - short of returning our economy and life-style to the middle ages. Of course the cost-benefit ratio is bonkers. Even if you take the IPCC's reports at face value. Why is Peter Lilley the only one with the nerve to point this out?Andrew Martin, Oxford | |
| When it comes to caring for the environment in any way I always think of Dubai (£20m on a firework display last week) and how its profligate waste of resources dwarfs ours, and wonder what is the point of our doing anything at all. BUT if our MPs are insisting on such an incredible reduction in our use of fossil fuels, let's see them set us an example by reducing theirs first - I'd like to bet that not one of them has the intention of doing so, or ever will try!Richard Crowley, Shropshire | |
| I'm unfamiliar with British law, but I find it strange that a current government may bind a future government by merely passing a law. The law does seem to blame carbon dioxide for "climate change", despite the fact that global warming peaked a decade ago (1998, as shown by all four temperature data sets (Hadley, GISS, UAH, and RSS), while carbon dioxide levels continue to climb.Michael McMillan, Houston, Texas, USA | |
| So much for "Vote blue, get green"! "Vote blue, get green rhetoric" is nearer the mark.Barney Drake, Bucks, UK | |
| Send us your comments using the form below: | Send us your comments using the form below: |