Warning: Table './drupal/cache_page' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire FROM cache_page WHERE cid = 'http://www.ukwatch.net/taxonomy/term/2941/feed' in /data/f4/content/ukwatch/public/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 172
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /data/f4/content/ukwatch/public/includes/database.mysql.inc:172) in /data/f4/content/ukwatch/public/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 531
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /data/f4/content/ukwatch/public/includes/database.mysql.inc:172) in /data/f4/content/ukwatch/public/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 532
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /data/f4/content/ukwatch/public/includes/database.mysql.inc:172) in /data/f4/content/ukwatch/public/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 533
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /data/f4/content/ukwatch/public/includes/database.mysql.inc:172) in /data/f4/content/ukwatch/public/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 534 Climate Change Bill | ukwatch.net
http://www.ukwatch.net/taxonomy/term/2941
Recent articles by watch area on ukwatch.netenThe Elephant in the Room
http://www.ukwatch.net/blog/ellie_keen/the_elephant_in_the_room
<p><b>From</b> <a href="www.planestupid.com">Plane Stupid</a> </p>
<p>A 5 metre high giant inflatable elephant shocked delegates at the Edinburgh Caledonian Hilton today with a massive banner stating ‘Aviation is the elephant in the room’.</p>
<p>This spectacle, created by anti-aviation group Plane Stupid Scotland, is a huge visual reminder that aviation remains a massive elephant in the room as long as emissions from aviation continue to be ignored in the Climate Change Bill.</p>
<p>The display took place outside a Hilton-hosted conference that brings organisations and researchers together to discuss how to “deliver the national transport strategy whilst meeting… climate change targets”.</p>
<p>The message for delegates and the public was clear: we must not repeat the government’s mistake in ignoring aviation, and make it top priority when discussing transport and climate change.</p>
<p>Plane Stupid Scotland member Dan Glass points out that: “The elephant in the room here is that if Scottish aviation grows as predicted its pollutions will swamp all our efforts and sacrifices to reduce emissions. We can forget about 80% by 2050 – we can forget about a liveable world for our children.”</p>
<p>Calls to include aviation in the Scottish Climate Bill are rendered doubly urgent as the Scottish Government will imminently bring legislation to expand both Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, and to outlaw objections to these expansions whether by parliament or public unless on limited planning grounds.</p>
<p>There is a rising tide of dissent against aviation expansion in Scotland, leading recently to the creation of anti-aviation network AirportWatch Scotland. Plane Stupid Scotland too shut down Edinburgh’s private airport in January and occupied the Holyrood rooftops in April. These are part of a growing host of groups and individuals that see airport expansion as a blight upon the environment and upon affected communities.</p>
<p>Tilly Gifford From Airportwatch Scotland said:</p>
<p><bq>“We are facing a runaway climate threat but the Scottish government’s reaction is to triple air traffic and expand Glasgow and Edinburgh airports whilst conveniently excluding aviation from the Scottish Climate Bill. The climate scientists have made it clear – we have to stop airport expansion. No more white elephants- real action now.” </bq></p>
http://www.ukwatch.net/blog/ellie_keen/the_elephant_in_the_room#commentsEcology/Scienceclimate changeClimate Change BillSun, 22 Jun 2008 20:15:56 +0000Ellie Keen6024 at http://www.ukwatch.netThe Price of Business-as-Usual
http://www.ukwatch.net/article/the_price_of_businessasusual
<p>Christian Aid is <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/218275/121309157467.htm">angry</a>. The British government has just “eviscerated” the Climate Change Bill, claimed the agency.</p>
<p>The <em>Guardian</em>, in contrast, appears <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/10/climatechange.carbonemissions">relatively delighted</a>. They simply cut and pasted a news agency report from the Press Association, headlined “UK bill to set carbon targets clears first hurdle.”</p>
<p>For some reason, they don’t seem very bothered about analysing the details. Yes, they’ve got a nice little debate going, with critics like ex-environment minister Michael Meacher head-to-head against current minister Phil Woolas, plus some added criticisms from the Lib Dems, the Tories officially congratulating Labour, not to mention several Tory backbenchers opposing the whole idea of action to prevent dangerous climate change. But there’s a very important point, mentioned, alluded to, but not really elaborated on, a point that at this time the public sorely needs to understand.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen any other reporting on what the government has just done with this Bill, and would be interested to see how the Bill is portrayed (if it <em>is</em> portrayed beyond the above meagre pickings).</p>
<p>But Christian Aid puts it very clearly. What matters, is not so much what is being proposed, but what the govt is studiously avoiding:</p>
<p><em>“Christian Aid said it was deeply disappointed at the Government’s refusal, revealed yesterday by Phil Woolas MP, Minister of State for the Environment at the start of the Bill’s second reading in Parliament, to include a target for <strong>cutting UK carbon emissions of 80 percent over 1990 levels by 2050.</strong><br />
</em><br />
<em>It said the removal from the Bill of an undertaking to ensure that UK emissions of greenhouse gases do not exceed the level necessary to<strong> limit global temperature rises to not more than 2C</strong> above pre industrial levels would fatally undermine the credibility of the UK’s climate change policies. </em><br />
<em>...</em></p>
<p><em>‘Only carbon emission cuts of 80% and above will keep global temperatures below 2oC. <strong>That target is essential as beyond 2C the effects of climate change such as drought, floods and disease will become rampant</strong>.’ “</em></p>
<p>Decisions, decisions. So the govt has decided that there’s no need to worry about the two degree limit (which is bad enough).</p>
<p>In fact, and we need to be very clear on this, at current rates of increase of emissions, where are we likely to be over the coming decades? Well, the <em>Guardian</em> isn’t exactly unfamiliar with this, given <a href="http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/scienceandnature/story/0,,2063401,00.html">their summary of Mark Lynas’ book <em>Six Degrees</em></a>, which outlines the findings of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers:</p>
<p><em>“The impacts of two degrees warming are bad enough, but far worse is in store if emissions continue to rise. Most importantly, 3C may be the ‘tipping point’ where global warming could run out of control, leaving us powerless to intervene as planetary temperatures soar. The centre of this predicted disaster is the Amazon, where the tropical rainforest, which today extends over millions of square kilometres, would burn down in a firestorm of epic proportions. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>“Computer model projections show worsening droughts making Amazonian trees, which have no evolved resistance to fire, much more susceptible to burning. Once this drying trend passes a critical threshold, any spark could light the firestorm which destroys almost the entire rainforest ecosystem. Once the trees have gone, desert will appear and the carbon released by the forests’ burning will be joined by still more from the world’s soils. This could boost global temperatures by a further 1.5ºC – tipping us straight into the four-degree world. </em></p>
<p><em>“Three degrees alone would see increasing areas of the planet being rendered essentially uninhabitable by drought and heat. In southern Africa, a huge expanse centred on Botswana could see a remobilisation of old sand dunes, much as is projected to happen earlier in the US west. This would wipe out agriculture and drive tens of millions of climate refugees out of the area. The same situation could also occur in Australia, where most of the continent will now fall outside the belts of regular rainfall. </em></p>
<p><em>“With extreme weather continuing to bite – hurricanes may increase in power by half a category above today’s top-level Category Five – world food supplies will be critically endangered. This could mean hundreds of millions – or even billions – of refugees moving out from areas of famine and drought in the sub-tropics towards the mid-latitudes. In Pakistan, for example, food supplies will crash as the waters of the Indus decline to a trickle because of the melting of the Karakoram glaciers that form the river’s source. Conflicts may erupt with neighbouring India over water use from dams on Indus tributaries that cross the border. </em></p>
<p><em>“In northern Europe and the UK, summer drought will alternate with extreme winter flooding as torrential rainstorms sweep in from the Atlantic – perhaps bringing storm surge flooding to vulnerable low-lying coastlines as sea levels continue to rise. Those areas still able to grow crops and feed themselves, however, may become some of the most valuable real estate on the planet, besieged by millions of climate refugees from the south.”</em></p>
<p>Yet after all the fanfare and jumping around and big words and loud promises, when all the racket about being Green has died down, the govt reneges on its own promises. What a surprise. Not.</p>
<p>Given that Brown did the same last year when he “U-turned” on pledges to follow EU targets to generate 20 per cent of Europe’s energy from renewable sources, as also noted by the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/23/renewableenergy.energy"><em>Guardian</em></a>, to its credit (and even the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/23/eaeu123.xml"><em>Telegraph</em></a>).</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Because, according to both papers, the Business Secretary John Hutton was worried about pissing off the Ministry of Defence, an “excessive” cost of about £4billion of investment (we won’t worry about the jobs that could be created in the process, nor the <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3587063.ece">£205 billion of taxpayers money </a>the govt has poured unchecked and unaccounted for into Iraq up to 2007, probably subsidising <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11">corrupt defence contractors</a>, that’s £6.5 billion for this year alone), as well as conflicting with the petrol-friendly <a href="http://www.wharton.universia.net/index.cfm?fa=viewfeature&id=1205&language=english">nuclear power lobby</a>.</p>
<p>This Bill is a fraud.</p>
http://www.ukwatch.net/article/the_price_of_businessasusual#commentsEcology/SciencePoliticsClimate Change Billglobal warmingNafeez AhmedTue, 10 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000Ellie Keen5973 at http://www.ukwatch.net