Comments on: The economic case for acting on climate change

By: Bob Bull

Bob Bull — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:25:29 +0000

Why, when all the above comments question the validity of the Climate Change claims, are you still going headlong with over green over reacting high TAX policy? If you really want to win the election differentiate yourselves and give us an alternative.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:10:22 +0000

I heard that this Climate Change thing is just a scam so a bunch of money folk centred around the UN can achieve a World Gobernment to complete the Globalisation Agenda.

I see nothing in the thing but political lies and Corporate Wheeler Dealing over Carbon and ever greater control of the already over taxed human debt cattle of Britain.

Is it true that this con was arranged through the Council on Foreign Relations, The Tri Lateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, all UN steering groups?

George Osbourn was at the last Bilderberg, I guess he knows what David Rockefeller wants from Britains Political System.

It all smells of Money Mafia to me.

By: david peacock

david peacock — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:36:29 +0000

global warming is a natural cycle and to say that human activitty is responsable for it is a complete CON
polititions have jumped on the bandwagon because, Hey there’s a tax we can put on it.

By: Richard Burton

Richard Burton — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:18:18 +0000

Regarding business and vested interests I might be able to answer a question posed on this blog. I work as an environmental consultant and i believe in anthropogenic climate change. Outside of my business I’m trying to raise public awareness.

I contributed to the blog following David Cameron’s comments, and someone responded that I had a vested interest in promoting a belief in climate change. I do, but i think we all do. I do benefit financially through performing carbon footprints, but there’s another issue. If I and others were entirely successful and convinced the majority of the public bthat it is true, I would suffer more. This is because I live in the fens below sea level. My house price would fall far beyond that which I could recoup through my business. So you see I am motivated by a genuine concern, as I believe most climate scientists are. some may be over zealous in rubbishing or omiting the bad data, but that’s because they’re exposed to the reality of this more than most.

By: michael carroll

michael carroll — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:37:31 +0000

In all honesty do you really believe the ‘global warming’ theory. Ive read your comments but I think you are all playing Canute.
The earth has evolved and changed over millions of years. All these elements/emissions are in the earth anyway and must have escaped to the surface many times over and over.I do not believe that anything we do will change the natural state of the earth. Granted the advent of smokeless fuel cleared the smog from the towns but that was an easy task to bring about.
Can you imagine if we all went back to horse and carts. The streets would be full of horse muck. Electric cars are about as much use as a handbreak on a canoe at the moment with limited range. Solar power???again limited.
When I was a kid I used to have the Eagle comic. The centre page was usually about something super which would likely appear in the future like a rocket into space and how it would work. We got the rocket we went into space. we even landed on the moon. What for?? We cant even recycle our rubbish properly yet!!
What I do notice about this ‘green thing’ is that its ok to pollute as long as you pay for it. IE; 4X4s can chug around in London or where ever as long as they pay the extra tax on road fund licenses/fuel/car tax etc. By the same token governments spend millions on anti smoking ads but quite happly collect the tax on each pack of ciggys sold. Furthermore, If we wished to smoke its our business and if we get cancer because of it the NHS had better give us treatment because we (who have worked hard) have paid into the system all our working lives.
There is a theory that lung cancer is connected to emmissions from aiircraft pumping all their burned and unburned fuel into the sky..But heyho they have to pay more for the privilage.
What with all this expenses scandle. The referendem on the EU we never got.
It all seems so false and hypocritical out there. You cant wonder at the confusion and uncertainty in the electorate.
Oh!! the next money spinner will be for Raydon. New laws will make us all reponsible for Raydon gas beneath our properties. We will have to purchase Raydon meters and declare readings when selling our homes. It may be in the HIPs regs now. Thats another load of rubbish dumped on us by labour..

By: Fifi

Fifi — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:59:09 +0000

make it more simple for people like us, simple souls!

By: Ed Lehmann

Ed Lehmann — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:33:03 +0000

Speaking as an ex-ICI, ex-Exxon chemical engineer, now working for PVCS (who make ~10% of the world’s solar silicon), I’d like to be a bit “techy”, if |I may.
First, computer models.
I’ve had to decide on the continued employment and safety of friends by using one, very carefully, covering many different possible problems. Believe me, in the right hands, they work. And when many models converge on a consistent position, over many years, aligned with other data, it is extremely unlikely they are 180° wrong.
Anthropogenic climate change is real, it is with us and may become a major threat. We need to head it off, IMHO.
Second, ecomomics.
If practicable, we need to put a cost on possible global temperature rise. Now this is very hard. For example, I suspect the Maldives are going to be uninhabitable within a century. Along with parts of India, Bangladesh, China, the USA and probably Europe. What is the cost of all that? And what part of that cost should be attributed to each tonne of CO2 we emit? And what discount factor should we use? Hard questions. But I would suggest we talk of “chargable costs” for CO2 emissions, and shift our revenue system to bear down on them instead of income tax, for example. Renewables don’t need subsidy – but do need disposal of damaging waste (CO2) to be charged for.

By: Stephen Yeo

Stephen Yeo — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:01:22 +0000

Nice try Greg. Distract us with the self-financing elements and then slip in that
“carbon capture and storage technology …provide … a stable climate system”. Not “may help to offset the man-made contribution to global warming” but achieve what has eluded the planet for millennia! Let’s hope the manifesto is worded a bit more carefully.

By: John

John — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:23:09 +0000

As can be seen by the majority of these comments, the public perception of warming/change is becoming far more cynical, and with good reason. With nightmare adverts to scare the children, and now a change to the focus on Methane who wouldn’t be sceptical?
The deforestation is the single most important thing indeed, not clobbering the cash cows with more taxes.
Greg is right about allowing householders to do more, germans get far more grant for green incentives, an so should we.
This is where the money should be spent.
Keep Greg on this, keep Zack locked up and away from the public, he is a climate change extremist. I will bet a large donation to the charity of choice that the whole climate lobby will be disproved in 5 years or so. Regrettably, with the news today about the Lisbon Treaty and snide
comments about the good folk of SW Norfolk, I’m no longer inclined to vote for you.

By: Malcolm Nicholls

Malcolm Nicholls — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:11:15 +0000

Like so many earlier comments this climate change bandwagon is making lots of people lots of money with no direct or indirect effect on the climate. The Government are again treating us as a load of idiots and think we believe everything they say.
This climate summit. How are all the delegates and their hangers on getting there, by air no doubt. What a carbon footprint thats going to be, especially when what they finally decide will not make any difference at all. You cannot stop the natural progression of the earth and its climate, if you are religious, only god can do that. Mind you I do think our politicians think they might be just that person. It has been said that our planet is in fact cooling, so perhaps we are now heading for another ‘Ice Age’.