Â鶹Éç

I felt that the coverage was balanced, I was happy to see a good degree of exposure on the fact that the UK only contributes a miniscule amount of pollution when compared to the United States, China and India.

Although, I can't help but feel that the coverage was only as strong as it was due to it being a slow news weekend.

Still, that being said, I still switch my lights and sockets off when I'm done. It's really a morality issue. Conservation is fine, but if people learned to be less wasteful it would be a whole lot easier.

I'm not sure it was successful and a lot of the coverage was very jarring.

In places, you seem to roll together fact and opinion uncritically and unthinkingly.

On News24 at one point yesterday, there was Will Hutton (I think) debating the Stern report - a report that a world-respected economist has spent a year assembling and researching. Below him, a caption read (and I paraphrase) "Your texts: Lee from Gloucester says: This is a load of old rubbish".

Where is the line between fact and opinion? If you want to report the fact that people are sceptical, report it. But confusing the messages on the screen meant that you looked even more like a "Day Today" style parody than normal.

As global warming is inevitably a global problem, no one nation can be isolated, held responsible, or impliment a solution on its own, not even almighty Britain. All discussions inevitably degenerate into bashing America for obvious reasons. It produces the most green house gas, it has a disproportionately small population compared to the amount of greenhouse gas it emits. Its people enjoy a very high standard of living which in part depends on enormous energy consumption tied to greenhouse gas production. But that is where the discussion usually ends leaving anyone wanting an objective analysis with a skewed view. The last word is that President Bush will not sign the Kyoto protocol treaty. But even conceding everything said about the validity of the sciencific rationale explaining global warming is true and the foregoing is true, there is far more to it which is always conveniently omitted.

Whenever anyone makes a rational decision to cut something out of a budget, it is always necessary to weigh not just the benefits of cutting but the sacrifice in terms of cost. Cutting US energy consumption would have an immediate adverse impact on the world's economy. As the major economic engine driving all others, what is said about the US sneezing and the rest of the world catching cold is still true as was seen in the US recession of 2000. The cutback in food production alone could result in enormous starvation among those who depend on vast US agrabusiness surplus to survive. Consumer prices in the US would rise reducing consumption which is two thirds of the US economy. This would put millions of people around the world out of work and might even cause political and social instability in some nations. As a producer of wealth, the US is not only the largest nation, it is a very efficient one. With only 5% of the world's population, it produces 28% of its wealth but only 24% of its greenhouse gas. By contrast, China with four to five times as many people produces less than a third as much wealth but 16% of the world's greenhouse gas. The average American produces over 12 times as much wealth per unit greenhouse gas as the average Chinese even though the US is spread out over a continent and has a harsh climate. But China is not required to make cuts under Kyoto for years while the US would have to cut immediately. Except for immigration, the US population is stable, but in the inefficient producers, China, India, and other "emerging" nations, population and the demands it places on energy needs are increasing only exascerbating the problem. Kyoto was not only therefore unfair, it flew in the face of where the most cuts with the least impact should be made. That is why not just President Bush but the entire US Senate rejected it 95-0. But rather than devise a better plan than Kyoto, one which is comprehensive, fair, and would actually work, environmental advocates merely kept bashing the US about Kyoto, in the end uselessly. And how did the nations which agreed to Kyoto do? Most of them missed their promised targets miserably becuase the were unwilling to make the very sacrifices they would impose on the US for the same reasons the US rejected it, it was unfair and ineffective.

Did Europe use the recent years wisely and profitably to invent and develop new better energy sources? Did it put its financial and technological muscle to work at solving the problem? NO! It squandered it on frivolous projects like a super jumbo passenger plane and a redundant space program, neither of which are needed by humanity.

So Europe, don't blame the US as the Siberian permafrost continues to thaw and methane is released, as the polar ice caps melt and the darker earth absorbs more solar radiation. In a real way, you have only yourselves to blame. As for solving the problem with just one percent of the world's GDP, that has to be a pipe dream. And the scheme for a tax and emissions credits, that's the biggest hoax of all since the wealthy nations will buy credits from the poor ones who will be unable to bear the onus of reducing their output and will not be held to account for it out of sympathy for their hapless populatons. Frankly Britain, I'd ask the authors of the Sterns report for my money back...at least until they come up with something much better and of actual value. We've heard enough of chicken little's warnings not to pay for yet another one.

Yes, you were successful.

Politicians of all parties have been falling over themselves to appear "greener than thou" whilst completely underestimating the public's reluctance to pay still higher regressive "green" taxes.

When such taxes in the rest of the world have caught up with those in the UK, where they are already almost the world's highest, perhaps people will be more disposed to listen.

Until then, the government should address their views on global warming elsewhere.

From what I saw, much of the coverage focused on how taxpayers may have to pay additional taxes to use their cars or to fly, but I didn't see much analysis of possible incentives and the Government's track record on public transport. Many other European countries have excellent public transport networks, why can't this be replicated in the UK?

Despite John Prescott's promises of a rail renaissance, the Government has shown little interest in expanding our rail network. Instead of expanding capacity on heavily congested routes, the Government has allowed fares to rise to the point where it is simply not economical to choose rail over the car. There are many new projects such as Crossrail which have been on the drawing board for years, but have yet to be approved. The projects that have taken place such as the West Coast Mainline upgrade have been delayed and have gone spectacularly over budget. I see little prospect of a real step change in the performance and capacity of the rail network under the current Government.

The Report has shown up some political positions, in fact so much for the green credentials of David Cameron. So much for the Conservative Party presenting a caring face on the environment.

An interview the other morning on Â鶹Éç breakfast TV with the Tory spokesperson on the current environment debate, Mr Ainsworth, let the cat fully out of the bag. The Tory Party spokesperson, in accordance with current Tory requirements refused, point blank, to say whether his party would support additional taxation of air flights in view of climate warming. No surprise so far, we all know that the Tories will not say what they believe in for a very valid fear that their beliefs will alienate the elecorate.

Upon being pressed the Tory Party Spokesperson clearly stated that there was no point in the Tory Party havnig a policy now as the election is some years away.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that opposition parties were supposed to provide alternative policies or even to support the government on issues of national importance. I did not know that opposition parties were supposed to wait until just before an election to formulate a policy on such a major issue solely on the basis of what will give them the best result at that time.

I cannot support this new, machiavellian approach particulalrly on an issue of such major importance to the world - let alone this country. Is it not time that the media called the Tory Party to book and demanded they stand on at least some issues please or at least comment on current policies in a constructive way.

Any political party who intends to use this issue for its own ends deserves to be hounded by the media relentlessly. Please media/Â鶹Éç do something.

I will give politicians a free clue: don't call them "green taxes", call them "green fines". If you speed too much, you get fined. If you pollute too much, you get fined. Fines for protecting public safety are acceptable to the public. BUT: you still have to use the money wisely, ok? Like a nationwide lottery with holidays abroad as prizes :-)

More seriously, I have not seen on the Â鶹Éç enough coverage of the Contraction And Convergence program. It certainly seems to address the concerns of the developing countries which many people are bringing up as an obstacle to an international agreement.

The Stern report is indeed a land mark document but the position of Government is myopic and will undermine its impact. People will resent paying more taxes when saving the planet will not depend on that. What Government should do is give people cost effective opportunites to save fuel and have an effect on the environment at the same time. Just as in the 60s when Govt gave grants for flat roof extensions so it could achieve a lot by giving grants for solar power and heat exchangers in houses. There would then be a spin off into other areas such as vehicle power and usage as people became familiar with this approach.

It seems to me that if the industrial world is serious about cutting back on the consumption of fossil fuel, then why is Russia so anxious to build new gas and oil pipelines and why are those who will consume and burn this extra fuel so eager to see them completed? Europe, Japan, what about those cutbacks you promised?

i think the Â鶹Éç missed a opertunity to voice the argument that the way you make the public change its habits is by tax breaks not tax punishments, punishments just make the people poorer and more resentful, but they carry on as before.

I actualy posted in 'have your say' that i think the easiest way to stop climate change in the UK was to force every garage in the UK to provide pumps for biodiesel and for it to be tax free. Say 25p per liter.

As ALL diesel engined cars run better on bio deisel which is vegetable oil with a little solvent in it, everyone would make the switch overnight as it would cost them considerably less money. And as the only by product is water it would dramatically exceed the governments CO2 targets overnight. This would also make the country richer as goods moved by road would be cheaper.

And as the country would be richer the lost taxation could be offset by increasing tax in other areas, maybe income tax seeing as that is the only truly fair tax.

But of course my post was censored (as usual)

Stern, the government, and yourselves, managed to spin the day into something about taxes. Meanwhile the planet is getting hotter. The Â鶹Éç's weather forecasters still regard high temperatures as synonymous with "wonderful". Reality hasn't dawned yet.

The problem, as I see it, is that journalists are human.If the Beeb could do something about that we would get balanced programmes:in the opinion of some of us, that is.

I recently found a newspaper from 1932 under the floorboards. It was about bad floods in London giving dire warnings of terrible things to come - of storms,floods etc all the things we are being warned about now.
How much of this is propaganda or a band wagon for our prime minister to jump on to make himself look good?

Here we go again with another con from our 'Masters', who, by the way, should be our servants.

These so called "Green Taxes" will do nothing to stop climate change. Nothing can be done to stop it. The Earths climate changes every few thousand years, and another change is long overdue. Emissions may or may not speed things up, but change is going to happen, it is inevitable.

Taxing people to stop the inevitable is no more than stealing. The people of the Earth should be looking for ways to survive whats coming, not for ways to halt it. Governments should be looking for ways to make what could be our last few years as the human race enjoyable.