The 10:10 Climate Change Pledge. Will you be signing up?

Fred_Bear_2

PasturesNew wrote: »

No. I am not wasteful in the first instance, so I fail to see how I could reduce mine by 10%.

No criticism PasturesNew, you may well be right, but it reminds me of my attitude a few years ago. In 2005 I decided to find out where my electricity was being used and whether I could save any. Over the last 5 years I have cut my consumption by about 3500 kWh saving me £350 per annum as well. I haven't had to cut my lifestyle, in fact I have increased it eg. now I use a breadmaker and bake bread the way I like it. It should be fun trying to save another 10% next year. In 2010 I intend to get serious about saving gas as well.

thescouselander

Mech - I agree that energy must be used more efficiently and alternative sources must be found from an energy security point of view. I'm all up for that.

But, whatever your view on the technoloiges being proposed for alternative sources of energy the fact is millions of pounds per year are already being pumped into research developing these technologies further. By your own admission some of these technologies wont be much good - therefore this money is being wasted in my oppinion and it could be spend on something more useful.

mech_2

thescouselander wrote: »

Mech - I agree that energy must be used more efficiently and alternative sources must be found from an energy security point of view. I'm all up for that.

But, whatever your view on the technoloiges being proposed for alternative sources of energy the fact is millions of pounds per year are already being pumped into research developing these technologies further. By your own admission some of these technologies wont be much good - therefore this money is being wasted in my oppinion and it could be spend on something more useful.

Yes, money is invested in R&D. That will happen whether or not a concerted effort is made to use available new technologies to reduce fossil fuel usage. There's always someone out there trying to capitalise on a new idea or to refine an old one. That's not the same issue as what it would cost to decarbonise, because what you do then is look at what is available and pick the most cost-effective choice at the time and spend on that, probably replacing other spending on fossil fuels.

thescouselander

mech wrote: »

Yes, money is invested in R&D. That will happen whether or not a concerted effort is made to use available new technologies to reduce fossil fuel usage. There's always someone out there trying to capitalise on a new idea or to refine an old one. That's not the same issue as what it would cost to decarbonise, because what you do then is look at what is available and pick the most cost-effective choice at the time and spend on that, probably replacing other spending on fossil fuels.

I have no problem with how companies spend R&D money, thats their business. The problem is governments are spending money on R&D and other activities related to decarbonising the country.

If it all turns out to be a waste of time because the reduction in CO2 has no effect or if climate change turns out not to be man made then that money has been wasted.

Alternatively the money could be spent on mitigation such as flood defences and that will have an immediate effect because it is already a problem anyway.

Not only that, governments are passing legislation that companies will have to comply with - like cap and trade in the US. This will all come at a cost which will be met by the consumer. And thats before we get onto the potential £200 billion the UK government has committed to spend under its obligations relating to the climate change bill.

elephant-astic

thescouselander wrote: »

I have no problem with how companies spend R&D money, thats their business. The problem is governments are spending money on R&D and other activities related to decarbonising the country.

If it all turns out to be a waste of time because the reduction in CO2 has no effect or if climate change turns out not to be man made then that money has been wasted.

Alternatively the money could be spent on mitigation such as flood defences and that will have an immediate effect because it is already a problem anyway.

Not only that, governments are passing legislation that companies will have to comply with - like cap and trade in the US. This will all come at a cost which will be met by the consumer. And thats before we get onto the potential £200 billion the UK government has committed to spend under its obligations relating to the climate change bill.

There are plenty of scientists, on both sides of the debate, who are grinding their own agendas rather than looking at the subject objectively, but so far as I can make out there is a consensus amongst a majority of objective scientists, that it's not so much a question of whether anthropogenic climate change is real, but more how much of an effect it's going to have in the future.
Personally I'd rather we took too much action to combat this threat, than too little; If we do the former we're out of pocket which is a pain, but if we underestimate the threat then humanity could be pretty much knackered. To me it's a no-brainer, even though I don't consider myself to be part of the fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth, climate change is real brigade.

I also think action on global warming has to be govt lead, business, & people in general, have too short term a view to be trusted to act on their own.

I kind of hope the effects of AGW aren't too great because frankly I don't trust humanity to have the vision, or will, to want to take significant action, at least until it's obvious there's a problem, by which point it'll be too late for many people. *shrug*

moonrakerz

I'm not going to say: "I told you so " - but I did !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html

P__G

Footage like this makes me so sad so I will do what i can. Even ctnics ought (IMO) to adopt the precautionary principle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nobt30zwFO4

thescouselander

P__G wrote: »

Footage like this makes me so sad so I will do what i can. Even ctnics ought (IMO) to adopt the precautionary principle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nobt30zwFO4

Yes, its very sad but that area is very low lying and will be liable to flood climate change or not.

So, should we spend £200 billion (yes, that is the actual figure estimated by the government) implimenting measures required by the climate change bill in the hope that manipulation of CO2 levels may in turn alter the climate in 50 years so that sea level doesn't rise further?

I say no - as a precaution (incase all this climate change science is bogus) we could spend a fraction of that money on international aid and build proper flood defences to stop the flooding right now.

mech_2

Who says there has to be a choice? Why either/or? Who says mitigation is cheaper than the measures in the climate change bill?

And where is the value in letting countries like China develop all the technologies that we will inevitably need anyway as gas, then oil and eventually coal run out (or at least become too expensive to be viable)? This kind of thinking will just lead to a greater trade deficit than we already have. Meanwhile we'll be held to ransom by foreign fuel suppliers.

thescouselander

mech wrote: »

Who says there has to be a choice? Why either/or? Who says mitigation is cheaper than the measures in the climate change bill?

Quite a few people actually. Nigel Lawson is amongst the most high profile critics on this subject. I suggest you read his book "An Appeal to Reason". It explains it all quite well.

mech wrote: »

And where is the value in letting countries like China develop all the technologies that we will inevitably need anyway as gas, then oil and eventually coal run out (or at least become too expensive to be viable)? This kind of thinking will just lead to a greater trade deficit than we already have. Meanwhile we'll be held to ransom by foreign fuel suppliers.

We (the UK) are already way behind on this. Most of the green technology is developed manufactured abroad - Things like solar cells, wind turbines and batteries to name but a few.