What also is worrying about the 'environment' debate (although on an
ethical-importance scale, far less serious than constraining the development of
the world's poorest)
is how in the UK especially the concept of "protecting the environment" has
become synonymous with extra taxation burdens and increased government
surveillance measures.
If, say, the UK govt was really motivated by green concerns, there would be
a balance of stick and carrot. We would have, for example, increased fuel taxes
along with subsidies on public transport. We would have road tolls along with
incentives for householders and businesses to locate in city/town centres. We
would have tax-subsidised low energy light bulbs, along with higher VAT on
conventional ones, and council tax rebates on houses with solar panels.
Water rates cuts for houses that soaked away their bath water or recycled it
into the garden. Taxes on flights balanced by government investment in local UK
coastal resorts, and maybe reduced VAT on UK guest house, hotel, rooms.
Where are these 'carrots' ???
By using the stick plus survelliance rather than stick plus carrot, the Uk
govt is in danger of
discredting the whole idea of going green, whatever the actual imperatives
of doing so.
Hillary Shaw, Newport, Shropshire
As an environmentalist (since the 1980s) and a human geographer can
someone convince me with the science of CO2 intensity in the atmosphere
directly impacting upon the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' (or global warming)?
CO2 is not a predominant gas in the atmosphere, and it contributes only
about an eighth to greenhouse effect. Moreover, on the scale of things CO2
emissions from human activity does not compare to that released from oceans
and volcanoes.
My third puzzlement is how can we know for sure that the changes are
irreversible and potentially 'runaway' through 'postive feedback'.
The climate change debate has been very political and more so in recent
years but all of a sudden I want to be convinced by the science of CO2 effects
on the climate.
Not wanting polemics but facts and scientific demonstration.
Nick
Unfortunately, the way the climate change is portrayed in the media
means
the nuanced, multifaceted nature of the debate is completely lost.
Apparently polemics are the new documentary.
Jon
>From:
Nick James <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To:
[log in to unmask]
>To:
[log in to unmask]
>Subject: swindle
>Date: Sat, 10
Mar 2007 00:36:06
EST
>
>_http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/_
>(http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/)
>
>Did
anyone watch this?
>
>Environmentalists have been painted with
one broad brush:
>We are anti-growth, anti-technology and dead against
the use of fossil
>fuels.
>Now we are told by this group
of scientists that CO2 related global warming
>is all one big
swindle.
>
>Climate is changing, climate is unpredictable; there
have been very warm
>periods (Medieval in Europe) and cold snaps (when
the Thames froze).
>
>Professor Stott (a geographer) tells us
excitedly about wine and riches
>when
>cathedrals were
being built in the UK in the medieval days.
>
>It is surely the
'uncertainty' that prevails both in the science
>(incomplete
>knowledge and arguments about models) and in the
social sciences
>(political
>and economic debates about
costs, development pathways and the
>precautionary
>principle).
>
>To suggest that all
environmentalists wish to stop 'development' in Africa
>is scandalous;
Ecological modernisation theory (the main practical
green
>orientation) can only be afforded in the North, so it is
preposterous to
>suggest
>that Africa should be constrained by
such a
cost.
>
>Nick