大象传媒

Since we can't seem to overcome our love for individualized transportation, should we undertake a "Manhattan project" on a "green" car?

do they really believe anyone will listen in this greedy world, everyone knows what to do with all the contentious issues, eg immigration death penalty green but the few who have the power will not give it away ..in fact they even select which questions will be addressed..I have tried to put my point of view many times but get nowhere, if I were a Scot perhaps it would help or dare I say it a Muslim

Can you ask the politicians why I have to pay 17.5% VAT on a planning application and buildings regulations (拢500 + 17.5% VAT) when I recently applied for permission to build a free standing wind turbine? Come to that, why do I have to pay at all? If the government is really serious, surely they can waive some if not all of these revenue earning fees?

My question is: how does the government propose on the one hand to tackle environmental issues by introducing green taxes, while on the other allowing the construction of new terminals at Heathrow among other airports? And, green taxes are not made payable by the companies responsible for creating their need: airlines. They are paid by the customers at extra cost. Isn't it time for the government to step in and regulate the industry; where big bucks and private investment count over the future of the public? What happened to democracy?

Why can't the family of a man who along with their father, built up a very successful business, get the information about his health from the NHS and the information about what happened to 拢millions he held in trust for his children?

Who stops the family from getting this information and why?

Where has honesty and truth gone?

His financial affairs were taken out of his hands, without his own children being aware of this in 1991.

we have the document to prove this 91 D 222. A Doncaster County Court document, but we have been stopped from gaining access to the rest. Why?

Don't the family especially the blood family who worked hard for years, nealy all their working lives have a right to see these documents and who signed from the legal and medical professions to help take his financial affairs away?

Congrats, Justin, on what cannot have been an entirely easy year.

But one key question?

Justin appreciated - and was surprised by - how much his flight to the Caribbean contributed to his annual carbon dioxide totals. Just one flight.

One long flight, or two shorter ones, are about the same as someone's entire gas, electricity and petrol use for a year.

Why on earth does the government have serious concerns about climate change, intend to produce a Bill this year to get the UK to do something tangible about carbon dioxide emissions, and YET - still have a policy of increasing the amount we fly, and encouraging airport expansion. Crazy. Utterly inconsistent. Completely not-joined-up.

And that is reflected in the behaviour of ordinary mortals (not to mention the 大象传媒) with long haul holidays and foreign second homes constantly being pushed as a "must have".

Serious need for consistent policy, and joined up thinking, however hard it is for us travelling folks to swallow.

I'd like to know the position on fishing. Over-fishing is the norm and there is widespread alarm and concern at dwindling fish stocks. Western boats are apparently having to go farther away for their catch and fishing in Asian waters, thereby taking the livelihood of asian/eastern fishermen who do not own huge trawlers. What do the parties propose to do about the dwindling fish stocks and how will they address the dilemma of whether fishing remains a sustainable industry or a means of putting food on the table?

Is that the democracy?

what sort of state do they realistically think their grandchildren's environment will be in by the time they're in their 40s and 50s, and (thinking of that wartime poster) what will they be telling their grandchildren they really did to address the warnings.

Two weeks ago the headlines suggested that if we want to live longer we should eat more red meat, last week the headline was "eat more than one portion of red meat a day and greatly increase your risk of cancer.

Scientists are arguing over several different theories on how the dinasours became extinct and now there are two mainstream ideas on global warming. One suggesting it is all down to man the second that it's the great big orange thing in the sky.

If science is arguing amongst and constantly contradicting itself over many different issues, who are the uneducated to believe?

Could a party commit to reducing environmentally unfriendly policies in semi-autnonomous government organisations such as schools and hospitals. Many schools do not recycle even though they only produce plastic and paper rubbish in general.

What plans are there to make energy saving light bulbs mandatory? Why - given that 1) the government is so concerned about the environment and 2) this would be such an easy step to take - has this not been done already?

Given that wind turbines are increasingly seen as ephemeral in the fight against climate change, why are they still so attractive to politicians?
Could it be their sheer visibility that makes them attractive, outweighing the fact that wind turbines are the most unreliable way of generating electricity and possibly the most expensive?

Hello.

I'd like to know the following:

1. Why is there not a dissuading tax on packaging? This could be applied at the factory/warehouse level.

2. Why are Tretrapak still allowed to provide non-recyclable packaging?

3. Why are things like water bottles made out of one kind of plastic while the tops are made of another.

4. Why, in fact, are so many types of plastic used for packaging?

5. Why is polystyrene still used as packaging when it is not recyclable?

6. Why is it so difficult to find a safe and environmentally friendly place to dump computers, hi-fis, phones, etc.?

7. Why is there no penalty tax on filament light bulbs and other unnecessarily wasteful home appliances?

8. And why are even the latest penalty taxes on gas guzzlers so pathetically low?

People want to be environmentally friendly but there appears to be no pressure at all on local councils to provide the green services that people want. This is a major failure of government.

Thanks and best wishes,

Eugene

Dear sir ,
Iam interested with your issue.So my question will concern the recognition of the homosexuel wedding. Do you think that such a practise is good for the human dignity and human moralities?

I would like to buy a car running on biofuels or gas. Purchasing the car is easy
Finding fuel locally is impossible

Make it easy to be green and tax us to the hilt when we are not green enough
Tax us on green issues we get taxed for stupid things so why not be original and tax us for a worthwile cause

What action is being taken to reduce consumption, rather than managing the effects of excessive consumption.

Follow on question: What are the economic affects of significant reduction in consumption of resources and do we need a more sustainable population level, say 40m rather than 60m in UK PLc?

When will politicians admit that more people means more pollution. The real way to limit pollution is to control the world鈥檚 population. 247 people per sq. km. (UK) is unsustainable and more than twice the European average.

What action is being taken to reduce consumption, rather than managing the effects of excessive consumption.

Follow on question: What are the economic affects of significant reduction in consumption of resources and do we need a more sustainable population level, say 40m rather than 60m in UK PLc?

When will politicians admit that more people means more pollution. The real way to limit pollution is to control the world鈥檚 population. 247 people per sq. km. (UK) is unsustainable and more than twice the European average.

Too many people representing the environment movement seem to only favour the stick rather than the carrot thus alienating people like me.
The government do should do more to help the environment.
Improve the railways by increasing capacity by using the unused carriages currently stored in sidings. Make it more attractive for the train operators to run longer trains and also restore a seven day a week railway. Many lines are closed at weekends due to engineering works and excessive interpretation of health and safety. Longer term we need more electrification.
More seats are needed on buses. Bring back the routemasters!
Home improvements should not be taxed.
And a plea to all politicians. Stop using the environment as an excuse for more stealth taxes!

1 Why has the government not reduced the tax on biodiesel as it did on unleaded petrol to ecourage its use? Why are there no incentives to farmers to grow and process biodiesel instead of set-aside? We would like to form a local co-operative to grow and process biodiesel for our own use, but it is not economically viable - and I bet we'd have difficulty proving to the Revenue that it was for our own use and not for profit.
2 Why is it so difficult to get grants/planning permission for sustainable power generation eg turbines, solar panels)? Again, the government would increase its take up enormously if the price paid by the national grid for surplus energy generated by individuals was higher (I believe that that's what they did in Scandinavia and the amount of energy from sustainable sources rose enormously).

Simple measures that could make a huge difference.

3 What's the point anyway? Anything I do is miniscule compared to the effect of Chinese power stations and other people's flights. I don't fly, but I get pilloried for having a 4x4 (that I'd like to be able to run by growing my own biodiesel)

People will be more thoughtful about environment only if they are obliged to pay taxes

The 大象传媒 series "Life On Mars" reminded some of us that 1973 lifestyles were reasonably comfortable.

Before 1973 half of UK households had no private car yet - because of that - public transport was more inclusive and better connected.

We can reverse the trend on consumption, fancy foreign holidays etc yet still be happy.

We need to learn how to have more fun with less stuff - and we need political parties brave enough to face up to that.

Will the government enact within the next session of parliament, or the opposition parties support, a Bill that will have staturoty annual climate change emissions reduction targets?

I must agree with Eugene on all his main points and this is just the tip of the melting icebergs. When Gordon Brown talks as he did in his budget speech he covered a thousand and one points many concerning matters of enviromental importance. And yet as with most of new labour policies there is endless spin and little substance of any significance. Its one thing talking, ideas are easy and although a lot of sense and reasoning is at work solid planning and policy directives must be set out by this and all subsequent governments .These are the kind of assurances we need from the politicians thoroughly thought through and fully operative enviromental policies and not just tax grabbing disinsentives which will only be ignored by the rich thats not democracy its hypocrisy.So lets hear how they plan to walk the walk please

I do hope that Newsnight has made plans to recycle Ethical Man now that he's no longer required.

Do you believe that all publically funded or promoted building projects should include some or all of the following ecco features like rainwater harvesting, solar heating, solar energy, dual waste water disposal systems (Waste and recyclable)Heat-pump aircon and ground source energy recovery?

My local Primary Schools and the Parish Council Hall are building new with none of these features. What an example to householders and Council Tax Payers. Where are our concerned Councillors (May elections!) and MPs?

Why, when we account for less than 5% of global emissions, are we beating ourselves up about it? To set an example to India, China and the US?

I have a question for Gordon Brown. I'd like to know why he thinks that extra tax on "gas guzzlers" could possibly have any real effect?
If paying through the nose for a big car that they don't really need and again paying for the unnecessarily massive amount of fuel they need to run it isn't going to deter Chelsea tractor drivers, does he really think that they are going to be bothered about paying a few extra pence in tax?
And does he really think the electorate is foolish enough to interpret this as a serious attempt at going green? (Hmm well maybe some of them :S )

Ok technically that's three questions, so sue me.

Why not Zero rate VAT on energy efficient light bulbs and home insulation, solar panels and water heaters?

Climate change is a process that has happened over the last million years and will carry on happening until the end of the Earth without our help. I agree that we should keep a clean planet and try to use as little energy as we can. But this is only to save money as the price of enegary has gone up so much. The bosses at the top of these companies are earning huge bonuses for doing next to nothing as the services are necessary to all. As for the causes of the current climate change, one should not be taken in by the hype. There are forces outside the planet Earth which have very strong effects in the condition of our climate. Have a look at the melankowitch cycles which describe the inclination of Earths axis to the plane of its orbit. This axis can deviate by as much as 5 Deg which does have an influence on our climate. The interesting fact is that we can not predict the weather more than 3 days in advance so how can these so called experts predict the weather in 100 -1000 years time. They can鈥檛, its all speculation by agencies that are paid by governments to put forward there view. So Green taxes, how can Green taxes stop the influences of other planets on ours, it wont, it will be put into the pile and wasted on lunatic projects like War etc. What I would like for a change is the truth.

Do unto others (and that includes nations) as you would have others do unto you. I am not religious, but spiritual. Listen to your inner voice and act accordingly. The world will be transformed overnight.

Can there really be such a thing as ethical capitalism? Justin's wife made a big fuss over his choice of share 'portfolio', but is any share ownership ethical? Almost every time we make a purchase or make a profit we're taking advantage of (exploiting)the inequalities built-in to the system. We're either profiting from someone else's labour or taking advantage of someone else's circumstances to purchase the fruits of their labour - dirt-cheap. Being environmentally-friendly is quite a different thing to being ethical.

The damage caused by piddling little wars are nothing, compared to man's careless destruction of earth's environment.

Yet, here we are, importing V-8 engined speedsters that have to crawl through traffic. This, while our Prime Minister refuses to take even the minimal step of joining the Kyoto Treaty.

Are we mad? Will we re-elect him?

Listening to the scientists they appear to be divided on the subject of our emissions.
The planet has been a lot warmer in the past. The UK was semi-tropical, hence the abudance of coal and oil. The sea level was higher. All this at a time before the human race had descended from the trees.
I wonder how much methane gas is produced by the vast herds of animals on the great plains of Africa, or even by our own domestic animals.

Why not have a policy of adding carbon/CO2 content to utility and fuel bills ? Tesco have proposed putting 'carbon content' on their store products which is hard to work out but the 'carbon content' of supplying petrol, diesel, electricity, gas and water is very easy and reliable to specify. Why not do this ?

Despite the well intentioned efforts of individuals, with rain forests the size of Switzerland regularly being cut down, no amount of recycling or abstaining from air travel will solve the problem if the Earth is deprived of its lungs thereby causing a build up of carbon dioxide which can no longer be absorbed.
The first thing governments around the world should do is to initiate tree planting on a vast scale and hope we have not left it too late to redress the balance and undo the harm already done.

1. The government has targets for renewable electricity (20% by 2020), and renewable road transport fuels (5% by 2010), but no target for renewable heating. This is despite the fact that heating accounts for roughly half of all UK energy use. Why are targets justified in the other energy sectors, but not this one? Approximately what renewable heat target do the parties think would be appropriate?

2. The EU target for 20% renewables by 2020 applies to all energy - not just electricity. How far do the parties think the UK should go towards meeting this target? How would they attempt to meet it?

3. There's good and bad biofuel - the wrong type can cause tremendous harm to the environment. What measures would the parties put in place to guarantee the sustainability of biofuel sources used to meet the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation?

4. The government admits it won't come close to meeting its target of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 2010 - in fact CO2 emissions have risen since Labour came to power. They claim they will achieve a reduction of ~16%, but seldom make clear that this includes ~6% from EU ETS credits - effectively carbon offsets purchased from abroad.

They also fail to make clear that "cuts" are often reported relative to a "business as usual" scenario of increasing future emissions, rather than to a fixed level of previous emissions. And reported emissions often exclude problem sectors, such as aviation.

Do all parties agree that government targets and reported carbon emissions should include all sources, should explicitly and consistently make clear what reference is used to determine a "cut", and should clearly show what proportion of a stated "cut" will be or has been achieved through purchasing offsets?

5. Ethics is about more than protecting the environment. How would the parties ensure that measures to fight climate change do not hamper the economic development of poorer nations?

Since hybrid cars are bring introduced into the market, part electric and part petrol, how is the consumer to know whether the electricity is generated by coal or gas ?

I speak mainly for America, since I believe 70% of the electricity generation comes from coal fired powerstations.....

Many thanks,

Philip Lowe

Because the drivers of the world are spoiled by individualized transportation, should we get a "Manhattan project" going on a green car to be made in the U.S??

If we want to start tackling "green" concerns on a major scale there is one simple the government could do to move the whole economy in that direction.

Allow ethical pension funds to reclaim the 10% tax credit that was lost a few years ago. Billions of pounds of pension funds would move to these funds and companies that don't qualify as "ethical" would see their value to diminish in the eyes of pension fund managers and thus reduce the influx of funds and the capital value of the stock.

It wouldn't be long before they all tried to qualify.

One small retailing group has ended the selling of patio heaters and other similar unethical fuel users. This must be due to enlightened management; the Government should be similarly enlightened, and act to curb the sale and use of these.

At the same time, the Government should act to promote the technology of microCHP, for which the potential for savings in carbon emissions from fuel for central electricity generation (and therefore for UK energy self-sufficiency) are enormous.

I should like to put in a plea for much clearer guide-lines on what is recyclable. Perhaps some government department or other could come up with this. As a previous post has said, plastic bottle-tops are a different sort of plastic - are they recyclable as well as the bottle? What about the plastic that a set of three plastic bottles of tonic water comes in? My local council's recycling sacks proclaim that tins are wanted but say nothing about foil trays that have contained food. Etc. etc. Small things, but they all add up - and not knowing adds up to frustration.

Calum Greenhow's confusion over the news stories he mentions is almost entirely down to poor reporting by the media. Of course, within science there are probabilities and conflicts associated with different theories and hypotheses, but the media does a terrible job of communicating the significance of these to the general public. They exaggerate things that are controversial or sensational because it draws people in.

On climate change, the sunspot hypothesis is not taken seriously outside a small group, who have yet to provide the "extraordinary data" to back up their extraordinary claims. Yet the media are unable or unwilling to understand and communicate this difference, and present both as scientific theories of equal weight.

On nutrition stories, these are generally reported uncritically and with a hysterical bent which is not commensurate with the quality of the source. Tentative scientific findings are reported as solid fact, and pill pushers and diet peddlers feed misinformation to the media knowing it will not get the sceptical eye that any good journalist applies to stories from politics and world affairs.

In short, scientists do sometimes disagree, and this is only right - scientists do not get together and come up with a united front to present to the media. However, some diagreements are only minor, and some "science" stories come from people with no qualifications and/or an axe to grind. The media is to blame for not bothering to differentiate between them.

To all and Sundry.... I hope you don't have any nutcases like Al Gore the Bull to clutter up your thoughts on the other side of the " Big Pond". Can you imagine his getting an oscar ? WEll, I can, because Hollywood should be closed down , anyway , and anything coming from that place, is worth nothing . Cyclical changes have been going on for eons, and if there is a change due to some emissions, it is so slight that it is not worth talking about. Besides, if the World keeps treating each other in the manner we have been, Global Warming is the least of our worries. We won't be around to worry about it, and we will make it quite warm indeed, with one fell swoop. Then when we find where some of us are headed, we can look forward to a much hotter time for all Eternity.

"We'll hear from a Lib Dem spokesman whose also a former RAF officer"

"Whose"?

Come on, Newsnight, you can do better than that.

Given that it was effective in reducing vehicle usage, when is the fuel tax escalator going to be introduced?

Can you ask the politicians when they are going to set us an example?
Why do they have a car park? - if they all had to use public transport it would be better.
Why do they get expenses for air travel? - video conferencing and rail or coach travel should be the norm.
Have Portcullis house and the House of Commons had an energy audit? - if not, why not, and if they have, what are they doing to improve it?
Why are the standards for all new Government and Local Authority buildings not zero emission?

How can the government, and the Tories talk about tacklilng climate change when they are backing an enormous expansion in aviation for the UK?

I'm flying out to Japan in a couple of months. I don't feel bad - if there were opportunities and less idiots here I wouldn't need to go.

When I'm there, I'm sure I'll live a greener life. Not by doing anything special, just by living a Japanese lifestyle. When everyone pulls in the same direction and the government makes a really effort to help people be green, it can work. Problem is, our society is one of individuals, unable to bare sitting next to each other on a bus.

It is clear that "something must be done" to protect the environment. I'm also sure that taxation has a part to play in this, although I'm not enough of an expert to know the best way in which to do this.

However, I am clear that two recent tax changes are absolutely meaningless. The doubling of Air Passenger Duty will do nothing to reduce the number of flights. Indeed, I think it likely that those who will be most affected will be people on relatively low incomes who can only just about afford the cost of a flight as it is. What about the business travellers, for example?

The other pointless gesture is the increasing of Vehicle Excise Duty on the highest polluters. Whilst I drive a Corsa, so it doesn't affect me, if someone can afford several tens of thousands of punds to buy and run one of those cars, does anyone seriously think that an extra couple of hundred in tax a year is likely to make a significant difference? I think not.

Whatever we do, it needs to be something realistic. Gestures are pointless, as is "going it alone" in the UK whilst other countries pollute as they wish.

The whole CO2 Global Warming issue has got totally out of proportion. Thankfully, ITV screened a well informed alternative scientific view entitled 鈥楾he Great Global Warming Swindle' for those who did not see the programme it expounded the views of several highly regarded experts making the case that all the CO2 produced by the whole of mankind contributes less than 0.05% of the total and that the sea via the sun contributes well over 50% and animals and decaying vegetation contribute around 3%.
I fully agree that mankind is polluting the environment at an alarming rate and that this has resulted in an unacceptable increase of illness and disease and we all need to address this issue but let us not fool ourselves into believing that our actions are seriously contributing to Global Warming.
Margaret Thatcher, fearing the same fate from the minors as her predecessor Ted Heath, created the think tank charged with the task of proving that the burning of fossil fuels would create Global Warming. Naturally, they reached the conclusion that she had charged them to find and that undermined the miners and allowed Mrs Thatched to focus on nuclear option.
Over the years the Global Warming issue has been seized upon by fringe organisations and disenfranchised groups and has now become a business employing well over a million people Worldwide. Anybody who questions their agenda is ridiculed and scorned upon.
The World has over the millennia gone through many cycles of climate change all having taken place long before the industrial revolution and the invention of cars and plans etc. I believe that we are just going through another cycle in the evolution of our planet. We really need to get everything into proportion and stop the scaremongering, in years to come our successors we will look back on today鈥檚 Global Warming issue and wonder what the all the apocalyptical fuss had been about.

Can supermarkets be forced by legislation to sell all goods with packaging which is recyclable?
If we give a few years to implement and make it mandatory it will surely concentrate minds.
I hate packaging which I can't recycle, clogs my bin and then adds to landfill.
Am now trying to buy only goods in recycled/recyclable wrapping. But as they say in China, a small spark can start a prairie fire. The spark, I fear, is not my grumpy self but surely must be legislation.
Next request is to follow Corsica and absolutely ban the plastic bag at all shops.
On the island, all shoppers come with their own bags/boxes and cannot have plastic bags even for a fee. It works there so why not on our smallish island?
Charis

Is it a promising sign that Newsnight's Watermellon Man is going to join in the debate with the likes of David (I'm_not_quite_ready_to_be Canute_yet_as_I'm_not_quite_sure_I_share_his_politics) Miliband?

How criminally superficial you are. Has he solved the issue that will kill us all? NO! Thanks for nothing!

Does David Miliband think it is up to the government or the individual to lower our carbon emissions? The way New Labour are behaving it seems like he thinks it is up to the individual - but then his government makes this impossible!

Classic Trotskyism/bolshevism (reincarnated as 'neoconsevatism' in the USA and as 'The New Left' over here) has a tradition of running with proletarian populism (the free-market) and spinning that as leadership.

As protecting us from 'terrorists' by the dysfunctional Home Office has lost credibility, it appears that they've turned to saving us from our carbon footprints as a second string.

Having abrogated government, what more can one expect from them but such theatrics?

Has anyone contemplated the impact of Shipping! They use the most polluting fuel and nobody regulates this.

There a no real incentives to use public transport. I live in essex. Over the bank holiday weekend my partner and i wanted to visit my parents in the west midlands. As i do not own a car i looked into using the train as usual. Due to it being Good friday the train operator decided to more than double its usual
fair of 拢14 to 拢38! When including the ticket price just to get to the departing station the total cost would have been around 拢45 each. Instead i hired a car for 拢40. Even including the 拢25 petrol it worked out cheaper between us than the inflated bank holiday train fares!

I would really like to know the carbon emmisions resulting from the war in Iraq (and not forgetting afghanistan while we are at it). It seems to me all those jets, boats, tanks, bombs etc must use quite a lot. Then you have the carbon cost of reconstruction...

Are these ever counted in our emissions?

Perhaps those decisions have made these discussions seem quite trivial if you consider the carbon/cash spent on the war how far would this have contributed towards emission reduction in the uk?

i would love to reduce my carbon footprint of my car but i have no alternative to turn to!!!!!!

why doent the government make all new build houses and offices have solar pannels and wind turbines as standard

if i put solar pannels on my roof the local government then increase my council tax as my property is deemed to be worth more

this will make any savings that i make on the solar pannels null and void

I recently saw a report forecasting a complete melting of the arctic ice cap within 13 years. At that rate, if this was due to industrial Carbon emissions the global temperature would have been an average temperature lower than -150 degrees Celsius - enough to liquify Nitrogen. It really is so foolish to single out Carbon Dioxide as the sole climate compound.

I'AM ABSOLUTELY PIG SICK OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE AND HOW IT IS BEING DEBATED, OR RATHER HOW IT IS BEING PRESENTED WITH A RATHER ONE SIDED VIEW, WITH NO ONE GIVING THE OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW.CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL IT HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS LONG BEFORE MAN FIRST SET FOOT ON THIS EARTH AND ANYTHING WE TRY TO DO WILL NOT ALTER THAT.

ALTHOUGH I WILL NOT BE AROUND WILL ANOTHER GROUPE OF SO CALLED EXPERTS IN THE FUTURE WHEN THE EARTH IS COVERED IN ICE WILL THEY CALL FOR THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS ETC TO REVERSE THE EFFECT.I JUST WONDER.

I totally agree with comment 55 by Anthony Gemmill. The media, apart from Channel 4, Labour Government and other political parties do not want to acknowledge the existence of opposing views on the subject of climate warming, as it does not suit their ends. Schools in Scotland are to be shown the video by Al Gore about global warming but will not be shown any alternative view, which shows that the Scottish Executive is single minded in its approach to the subject. Similarly most television programmes on the subject, as on tonight's Newsnight, have only a token alternative speaker against several people espousing the view that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming.

There have been times through the centuries, when the climate has changed either by cooling or warming. It is not a recent occurrence.

Putting a tax on flying will not make any difference except to The Treasury coffers and is merely another Gordon Brown scam.

The mind is the mirror of the soul. If this is so, then our external environment will mirror the condition of our heart. Is our heart full of simplicity, truthfullness, mercy and cleanliness?
Then, to that extent, so will our external environment be a spiritually progressive place to live.

I fear the EU's method of reducing Carbon emissions by substituting fossil fuels with biofuels is highly simplistic. If a better train network was built from Scotland to London, business travellers would no longer need to fly. This would reduce Carbon emissions from this non-leisure source by a whopping 75%. Biofuels will not necessarily reduce Carbon emissions, as it does not provide alternative means of transport. So my point in this is to point out to the critics of Britain's poor adoption of biofuels in the European parliament, that state that all areas need to use 20% biofuels, is that there is no point if total transportation increases, it will only be cancelled out by a 20% transport increase. Not sustainable at all. A much more sustainable means of reducing Carbon emissions is to reduce the unnecessary need for air travel. I am not against the use of biofuels, as I think it is important we look at using sustainable and renewable sources of energy as fossil fuels become more difficult to obtain. I however think the priority in the UK has to be to provide a better public transport system. Energy conservation is the first step before energy substitutes. Compare the energy savings when comparing a domestic wind turbine with double glazing. Cut the aircraft expansion before trying to make biofuels to fuel the thirsty sky submarines. We should stand by our guns on this one and show Europe how to do it properly. Put a tax on Kerosine instead of Petroleum. This will give us sustainable transport.

Global warming is indeed a world
issue, and everyone should do what they can.So lets start with this goverment first, what a bunch of fools ever existed.Lets collect some airport tax thats a good idea, the coffers can do with a bit more of that.so what should happen, let me think(unlike the politicians)would some sort of research be good to make flying cleaner,well never mind there isn't any money for that.
Well what about the billions collected for CAR TAX. does any of that go to make greener cars.well never mind theres no money for that.Little wonder most people would tell them to shuv it were the green policys don't shine.

Let's talk about Ethics and do they exist within the legal system and the media. It's a Good Day in Durham and the state of NC and the entire US of A. Even though our own local paper hasn't given the young Duke University students accused of allegedly raping an exotic dancer the right to the presumption of innocence, I'm glad to know that international media were here last month asking questions about
due process, constitutional rights and presumption of innocence. Paula Zahn of CNN is as gracious in person as she is professional on screen. Her
team of twenty or so producers, directors, camera and make-up people
truly follow her lead. I had the wonderful coincidence of meeting her while out to lunch with friends and telling her my views on this case,
which she then quoted on air that afternoon. I told her it was my feeling that DA Mike Nifong was using this case to inflame racial adversity to broker political gains since the DA was up for election directly after this case started. Much has been done to bridge the gaps both socially and economically in Durham, NC. This has only set us all back.However, it's brought to the fore many issues that should be discussed openly in our community and has brought the truth of our imperfect justice system to light.
It is my hope that the media re-discovers itself as the protector of the truth not the prosecutor of the falsely accused. Mostly, I am heartened by the integrity of our well spoken attorneys. These men make me think of the founding fathers of
America. A kind of breed that didn't exist in the USA anymore, or their extinction imminent. I'm glad to know there are a few of them in my family. My father was one, my uncle, my cousins are others. And still, that I've been blessed enough to be represented by a few of these knights in shining armour from outside my family. I thought I was just getting lucky with choices and recommendations. These knights are the kind who enjoy the evolution and growth of the law rather than the execution of it to merely serve financial ends. Finally, these young men falsely accused, their families and their attorneys appealed to everyone that we should not focus on issues and situations being racist, class oriented, or gender biased but that we should just do what the good Lord said to do during His Sermon on the Mount, "Just Love One Another." What better grace can be found from a horrid situation than that?
Peace and joy to all,
Kimberley DeBruyn Caulfeild

I'd love to be ethical, unfortunately I don't have the 拢拢拢. As I struggle to make ends meet, buying organic or fair-trade just isn't an option. I'd love to heat my house water with a solar panel but somehow forking out a couple of grand just isn't going to put shoes on my kids feet. I'd love to use wind power to cut my fuel bills but even if I could get planning permission I couldn't afford to buy a turbine.
This government seems obsessed with throwing silly money at causes that are politically sensitive in order to seem to be doing something only to watch that money frittered away on unproductive gimmicks and publicity stunts.
When are they going to throw some money at this cause and help ordinary people to be more ethical?

Am I the only person who is getting sick to death of all this nonsense about global warming and environmentalism. As a Christian I do believe we have a responsibility to take care of God's creation but I do not think the case has been proved for human activity being responsible for global warming.

It is the self-righteousness of the Green lobby that really chaps my hide. Instead of them spending their time blethering on about global warming perhaps they could do something more constructive. Maybe they could also follow the example of many Christians who give sacrificially (many Christians believe in giving 10% of their income!) to causes that will make a real, tangible difference to people's lives rather than just buying "fairtrade" coffee.

We should also remember that time is a very limited resource and I for one don't have the time to spend sorting out all our rubbish into several bins.

Anthony Gemmill sees the (Channel 4, not ITV) programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as showing a "well informed alternative scientific view". I suggest he takes a look at this site for a refutation of many of the claims made by this programme (I refrain from calling it a documentary) and some of the people in it:

As it says, this is "climate science from real climate scientists". Why do you choose to trust this single programme and the handful of people whose views it represented, over thousands of scientists? Could it be that blaming it on solar activity allows you continue your selfish lifestyle unabated?

There are three questions in general I would like to see Justin answer :-
1 Why weren鈥檛 you doing all of these 鈥渆thical鈥� things already, and not just as a response to Newsnight鈥檚 producer?
2 Why is it that your consumption is still well above the 鈥淥ne Earth鈥� sustainabilty level?
3 Do you really think that changing to low energy light bulbs will save the planet?

At long, long last the 大象传媒 has mentioned what up to now has been the unmentionable, 'population'. The question is how long will we have to wait for the 大象传媒 to mention population in the context of Britain, for as one of the most over populated countries in the world, and as a result one of the most unsustainable, it is the most critical issues regarding our sustainability?

As it has taken years for the 大象传媒 to mention population in a world context, its probably more than likely that we will have to wait a long time, for as it is immigration which is growing our population, it leaves the 大象传媒 with conflicting values, for at the same time as its telling us to wear hair shirts for the environment, it also suggests immigration is an unequivocal good.

Newsnight said we add 3 million tons of CO2 per year per person. In the last 10 years the Government has increased our population by 2 million through immigration, that works out to 6,000,000,000,000 tons of C02 added, and they tell us that we will have to cut back on our environmental effect? the disconnect in the Governments policies are beyond belief!

Why does not the British Government offer interest free loans to stimulate the buying of solar panels and wind turbines for those most in need of "free" energy, the poorest in society?

My comment is about Justin Rowlatt's introdudutions on newsnight when commenting on the tory party...He called them 'Cameron's goverment'.
I'd like to point out they are not a goverment at all,just a party. I don't think Rowlatt's and the 大象传媒'S biased party views should be promoted in such a squeaky way.

An issue with being green, or 鈥榚thical鈥� as some like to call it, is that being green has become a middle class lifestyle pursuit, rather than a drive towards some real objective.

Giving up consumerism to live a carbon neutral lifestyle where you eat organic yak cheese, your wife wears organic yak wool jumpers, and the kids only brush their teeth in rainwater is great, if you鈥檙e living inside the Sunday supplement universe of the aspirational well-off middle class professional family who need some new fad to fill their otherwise over-achieved lives. But for everyone else, downsizing their 鈥榗arbon footprint鈥� is an impractical luxury.

Agreed, it is noble giving up the MPV Chieftain Tank and travelling on public transport, but many mortals do NOT have this 鈥榣ifestyle鈥� option. And why should everyone-else be expected to NOT aspire to owning a 4x4? Surely, no-one REALLY wants to travel on public transport (well not in London anyway). As for air travel, it could only be the well off middle class professional family who would support stopping everyone ELSE from flying.

And lest us not forget the 鈥榗arbon consultants鈥�, those self-appointed, unregulated, eco-evangelists willing to sell the counter-aspirational eco-dream to the drippy eyed middle classes, with smug grins and bleeding obvious statements. It doesn鈥檛 take an expert to tell you that turning down the heating saves money and CO2, yet there鈥檚 plenty of money to be spent to hear the message.

Climate changes, full stop. David Milliband is as likely to stop global warming as King Kinute was able stop the tide from rising. Politicians instead should be thinking about how they will adapt to change, rather than manipulating the gullible majority that it is they, the gullible, who can halt a natural process through self inflicted guilt, expensive lifestyle fads and, probably, an eagerness to pay stealth taxes.

Don't believe the hype.

Iain #76.

It would indeed, and the disconnect is alarming. See Comments 19, 22 and 30 here:

/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/tuesday_27th_march_2007.html

Progeny and their footprints featured on the 30th:

/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/how_ethical_is_my_baby.html

But the concern surely is not the (atypical by the national TFR figure of 1.71) fecundity of the rare, affable, educated (albeit only role-playing), watermelon man (which should be encouraged), but that of the burgeoning dysgenic masses who really don't give two hoots about their family's carbon footprints because they're essentially uneducable. See links above.

Not that I believe that care for our environment or well being is behind our Environment Minister's passion for anthropogenic Global Warming. I fear that's just a calculated (if somewhat misjudged) effort to get more of an apathetic electorate politically engaged in support of his waning New Left Labour. I say misjudged because the reality would seem to be that most folk are now well beyond the reach of any appeal to reason and increased personal responsibility (see the crime and school delinquency figures) given the persistently selfish, short-term gain driven culture which his government and its Tory predecessor has promulgated for over 25 years.

Given this, I doubt that Miliband or Gore will succeed in bringing back the 'glorious' days of socialism through these tactics, or with their "war on terror". Although it's interesting to watch them try and probably hoist themselves in the process.

In reply to Ben Jefferys comment 74, I would like to point out that it is the only television programme to date that has put forward an alternative perspective based on the views of a small sample of international and well respected scientists.
I question what qualifications Al Gore personally has for his contribution, as with all politicians we must not forget he is just another over ambitious egocentric climbing on a bandwagon for his own ends. Similarly, when future generations look back I am sure they will also question Margaret Thatcher鈥檚 contribution having created the IPCC in 1988 purely to protect her own position?
To add another dimension to the debate I would like to quote G.L.G.Richardson Capt(ret) from the NZ Herald: 鈥楾he globe is in the middle of the coolest times in 8000 years. What really caused the global warming myth? Margaret Thatcher started it when she wanted nuclear power and to allay the public fears funded an anti coal and oil campaign, humbug story so the British would not grizzle to loudly about N power. Have a look at some of these It spells it out loud and clear. We are about to enter an Ice age, of what magnitude is yet to be determined.
In spite of all the advances in climate research we are still unable to predict the weather four days hence let alone what will happen in twenty plus years. Those who believe everything that they have been reading, seeing and hearing lately about global warming probably still believe the Earth is flat
We really all need to get the situation in perspective: Yes we should and must think before we act, conserve energy, recycle where possible but this is solely to protect our environment and has nothing to do with Global Warming.
One of the best contributions to this debate is that of Ian Comment 76 and like him this is the first time I have heard the 大象传媒 bring the question of over population to the table in the climate change debate. Well done Newsnight let us hope that this is not a flash in the pan.

We can all be pretty aware of the negatives and short term answers in this debate, but, if humanity is going to learn anything, isn't one of the biggest lessons that there is far more to life than consumerism and profit? It has been shown recently that the population of this world deserves more from all of its governments, less spin and greed, and less tax for incongruous reason (as mentioned above).
A few weeks before this Iraq War, the World Health Organisation produced a report saying that it would cost 4 billion dollars to give fresh water to everyone on the planet.... so why can't the West lead the way? Having spent 100 times that since on the war. Why can't our present "gang" of politicians stand up and lead us in to some exciting new ventures.... like untaxed, home produced, low emission fuel for our existing houses and cars.. including subsidised solar panels where the houseowner is congratulated for "renting" their land or roof space for the sake of the common good. Yes, there will be casulties, as there have been throughout history.... look at the number of shipping businesses that disappeared when we designed steel hulls over wood... or the train took over from narrowboat. History has many examples. We now have access and the economy to build a real worldwide market, with access to free commodities to benefit all.
I have watched solar panels, and their cost for 7 years, but it is still a long way from being truly viable as an investment.... even though the technology works, there are far too many people taking a cut for it to be of benefit yet. Sunlight is free, so we should be allowed to dispense with old fashioned infrastructure bills, after all, our houses all have electricity connections. Why not a nationalised home electricity generation scheme where we all finally have access to free and clean electricity?
There are many free benefits, after short term investment, to be had from the technology being invented by this debate, as usual the politicians are just reacting to pressure groups and tinkering instead of looking at the whole picture positively.
Can you imagine how the UK would change if we all had free and sustainable electricity? That would in itself clean up this pretty debate..... there is only one reason not to do it, a total lack of clear long term thinking. Networks exist that can make this and other "free" projects happen.... it just takes a real ethical leader to do it. Sadly, I have yet to see one person make a positive uncompromising stand for all of us.
In my lifetime, ethical man has never existed, lets hope he may do sometime soon.
If we believed in it, we could already use water or biodiesel in our cars..... and travel more, not less..... or use the same in jet engines and have even cheaper travel..... but the oil industry will not give up that easily, or will it? A quick look at the investment by BP in solar panels reveals where they think their future market is.

I shall miss Ethical Man greatly!

No disrespect to Justin and family, but just how representative are the
Rowlatt's? if national TFR is 1.71 what is the point of picking a
clearly well educated, atypical family, where it's already 3? Where are the figures which show that his family is at all representative? To put the problem in a nutshell, it isn't mere population growth that's the problem here, it's *differential* population growth, i.e. which sectors of our population are reproducing fastest and which the slowest. This can lead to a sift in average ability. The UK (and the rest of old Europe) has an aging indigenous population i.e a low TFR, but which sector of society is producing children at the highest rates, and what are the implications of this for future human capital (skills and IQ)? This is the stuff that government actuaries concern themselves with as it drives all sorts of services. Again, no disrespect to the Rowlatt's, but surely we're already awash with students of media studies and the arts (looking at HESA figures). This is something Paxman commented upon more in the past, along with the media frequency of 'Marxists' (or is it champagne socialists?).

National figures would seem to suggest that 'Ethical Man' just isn't representative, and if that is so, one must ask surely whether the 大象传媒 at being at all 'ethnical' when presenting images which may be highly emotive and appealing but statistically misleading? One should look to statistics, not salient images - regardless of how cute and affable they may be. We even had the silly suggestion that one of the action groups might be thinking of culling babies! I have no doubt that women can hold down jobs and families, many have to, but to what extent can they sustain demanding careers as well as families, and how does that very C20th problem impact upon differential fertility, and ultimately upon social responsibility (and I'm not just referring to 'carbon footprints')? We no longer have communities because most women are out at work - there are costs to this.

Politicians and broadcasters have to abandon their 'Lake Wobegon'
mentality and focus group driven populism if they expect to be taken
seriously. That they won't is why nobody takes them seriously anymore.
They are too busy chasing ratings. We have far too much pitched at the
dumbed down average person so we now have to endure Kafkaesque/Orwellian slogans like *all* children are to be educated to *above average* proficiency levels in numeracy and literacy. Either large numbers of political advisors and media folk skipped statistics and biology or something has gone terribly wrong. Before 'Ethical Man' we had weeks of nonsense about the plight of the scientifically illiterate - they seem to dominate the highly verbal media, as do women these days. Might there be a connection?

Passing the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the RRAA, and opening our borders to anyone in (the ever expanding) EU, whilst offering asylum to all eager to flee whatever misfortunes are the consequence of dysgenic fertility in their own countries, may seem humanitarian, but another way of looking at it is in terms of demographic warfare, poor government, or worse, wilful sedition. In time, this country must go the same way as the third world countries which we accept refugees from, as nobody will pay for a welfare state which provides for hoards of free-loaders from elsewhere without any concern for this culture, just what they can take from it.

Furthermore, how can even a downsized Home Office 'skills test' migrants if borders are not patrolled? And even if they were patrolled, how can entry be refused given current EU rules? If we were fully signed up to the EU constitution, surely this would be even harder still?

Realistically, all we can do is accept that there will continue to be disproportionately higher fecundity amongst the lower ability segments of society as a consequence of more (especially able) females (of whatever race) spending progressively more of their potentially reproductive years pursuing the trappings of the good life (look at the average age of first births).

I don't see how any of what's being planned today can help improve a) the anthropogenic contribution to global warming, b) the economy, c) educability and the crime rate or d) cultural stability.

Perhaps Newsnight could get a few politicians on to tell us, instead of these incessant 'debates' which tend to go nowhere? Most of us can't do much about this, but that's what we elect governments for. Sadly, all they seem to do is tell us that it's best left to market forces, which as I see it, amounts to them doing nothing.

What makes matters worse, is that not only that we don't seem to have any answers, but some amongst us seem determined to export this formula to other cultures for their own good! Is it any wonder that some of are violently opposing such arrogant imperialism?

Sorry if that's all a bit negative, but perhaps someone can present a brigher picture?

Thank you for daring to include population levels in the televised debate. It was a decent debate and the composting clip was hilarious. I fear though that the message from the media so far is that climate change is something which will affect the usual starving foreigners several decades hence. It is time for a few hints about who is going to have to take in refugees - imposed upon them by the authorities - when Portsmouth, Liverpool, central London, etc. are under water.

I don't believe that we are still living a civilized world. In the last few days, capitalism and imperialism issues attend like an earthquake but nobody knows where its episentrum and hiposentrum. Should we waste our time for discussing an abstract object?
Let's try to learn from our self, our family and society. I have many ideas to respond concerning those kinds of global topics, but however I have to learn to manage myself firstly, and then learn the world in its whole sides. Congratulations for all success stories, and recorrection all wrongs.
What makes matters worse, is that not only that we don't seem to have any answers, but some amongst us seem determined to export this formula to other cultures for their own good! Is it any wonder that some of are violently opposing such arrogant imperialism?
Thank you

Adrianus Nabung
Flores, Indonesia

3. How is it to be practiced the logics of the justice, in ours every-day-life, on the conditions of a human (made of attitudes & these attitudes鈥� basis),?
In the conditions of this social person takes part in the present situation and the political behavior, but as an influenced by the hystorycal middle & the social base, altogether?
How much important will the communication be, as it is the only connection between all these parts ?
I am asking you all this, as I am implied in a system within the Romanian person will only express: we don鈥檛 need education, we don鈥檛 need force, control, leave us and our not-intellectual children alone, all we need is just another brick in the wall鈥�.
What do they mean by this 鈥渁nother brick in the wall?鈥�

How is it to be practiced the logics of the justice, in ours every-day-life,
on the conditions of a human (made of attitudes & these attitudes鈥� basis),?
In the conditions of this social person takes part in the present situation and
the political behavior, but as an influenced by the hystorycal middle & the
social base, altogether?
How much important will the communication be, as it is the only connection
between all these parts ?
I am asking you all this, as I am implied in a system within the Romanian person
will only express: we don鈥檛 need education, we don鈥檛 need force, control, leave
us and our not-intellectual children alone, all we need is just another brick in
the wall鈥�.
What do they mean by this 鈥渁nother brick in the wall?鈥�

Ethical Man- What a load of rubbish!!!!! I have just watched "Ethical Man goes global" and find it absolutely disgraceful that the 大象传媒 and Mr. "Ethical Man" himself think that they are raising awareness about climate change when all they are doing is adding to the problem by increasing their carbon footprint by a good few tons by having the so-called "ethical man" fly all they way to India and back to try to convince poor George to give up his car and forego his first overseas holiday. Georges' entire family most likely have a carbon footprint smaller than the amount of carbon pumped out during the flight to India and the other processes that went into making this ridiculous documentary. Exactly what is the 大象传媒 and Justin Rowlett trying to acheive here?