主播大秀

While Briton seems obsessed, the USA, Australia and China among others seem to have little interest in saving the environment.

These issues get little play in political circles in those countries.

Then again, does it need saving at all? And why should we pay for it?

I GET THE FEELING THAT THE LABOUR PARTY ARE TRYING TO STEAL LIBDEMS CLOTHES.
WAS NOT THE LIB DEM WHO IN THEIR CONFERENCE WAS THE ONLY ONE'S TO MAKE A GREEN POLICY.
AND AS FOR THE TORY,S I THINK THERE POLICY DEPANDS ON THE DIRECTION OF THE WIND.

Dear Newsnight

I heard a remark on the 主播大秀 news that people are concerned about making efforts to cut carbon in case others do not follow suit.

I hope we can quickly bury this argument, leadership is about leading the way. We need to do our best and apply all our skills in doing this.

But on no account should we allow our standards or what we do to be set, or influenced by others.

If necessary our country should lead by example and strive to exceed our own targets to cut carbon emissions and protect the environment every way we can.

best wishes

Bob Goodall

Global Warming is all of a sudden a clear and present danger to Blair. It's not going to take place in the next 25 minutes and there are no signs of threatening weapons, although mass destruction could be a consequence of delay.

Let's hope Sir Nicholas Stern's report is truly independent and free of any interference from Blair.

I think your economists need to warn people now of the possibility of a serious global recession, resulting in widespread unemployment, involving serious hunger and famine for many, if carbon emissions are not controlled.

Recession might still be the outcome if the transition to a carbon free capitalism is mis-managed.

Economists should be asking this question: can we rely upon capitalism to produce the solutions we need, does it have the means, the scope, to manage climate change while avoiding recession?

Why punish gas guzzlers? Surely it is the number of miles the car does that causes the pollution.A small car will polute more than a 4X4 if driven for more miles. Therefore tolls on the roads and tax on petrol/diesel will sort the problem out.
Extra road fund tax or parking charges will be useless, people will pay the money and nothing will change.

Question. What effect will Britain have on the world's emissions? As a country, our savings would be virtually zero. I believe climate change is just political posturing. THE WHOLE DEBATE IS A WASTE OF TIME.
A start would be a better road system to cut vehicle emmissions. Immigration means we are increasing our output of greenhouse gases.

Does anyone else spot the guy with a placard on Hyde Park Corner saying ``The End of the World is Nigh''? Is this report really credible when we can barely predict the weather in three days time? Does anyone else remember ``The Club of Rome''? It wasn't the climate then but over-population. What happened? Technology saved us. Is there any reason to take Nicholas Stern seriously? I don't think so. And why is the answer to economic doom more growth-sapping taxation? I think this country is being run by a bunch of clowns.

I don't doubt that the worlds climate is warming up. I do have great doubt about the effect we have on it by our use of fossil fuels.It is probably just another cycle in the earths normal behaviour.
Great Britain did have a tropical climate at least once in its long history.
The one thing that I have no doubt about is the fact that every government on the planet will rub their collective hands in glee as they work out how much more in taxes they can impose. All the more in the pot for them to do their junketing around the world, ostensibly fact finding. A tad like your ethical man did. Never forget their expense accounts either.
Of course the climate of fear they try to engender on the whole issue can mask, or so they hope, everything else they make a mess of.

Lastly, show me a problem and I guarantee to find an abundance of so called 'experts', many having diametrically opposed views.
Of course many will have their own agenda not to mention political affiliations.
We have just had a prime example of an expert in the baby death cases.

Well here we go again Tax, Tax and more Tax. This seems to be the only answer that ever comes up to this problem of climate change. One of my questions is what are they going to do with all this extra tax, more pockets lined on pointless committees talking about it. I hear no mention of re-investment in helping people to reduce carbon ie home wind power and so on. Talk and tax is all we hear from those who at the end of the day will not be affected. Now if you really want to make a difference how about a bit of common sense something this government certainly lacks. Why not put in measures to say within the next 10 years 4x4 will be banned, only A rated equipment will be sold, raise the standard of new buildings with better insulation, triple glazing, wind turbines. Cars up to 1.4 cc will only be sold sorry petrol heads, greater investment in public transport and for those who wish to carry on in the old way then tax them out of sight!
Their are many answers but this country cannot do it alone it needs a world effort how about getting the UN to buy on behalf of mankind the rain forests, now thats a throught.
Sadly I feel profit and winning popular elections will come first before anyone really stands up and says that it enough is enough its not climate change thats needed but mankind change thats required.

There is no need to introduce green taxes. The fairest way to cut consumption of carbon is to raise the top rate of income tax to 75% and stop all the wealthy from being able to afford to fly regularly and drive around in big cars. It is increasingly becoming the case that anyone on below average incomes have nobody left to represent their interests. If new green taxes are introduced perhaps the only hope for the poor is for Farmers For Action to come out and blockade the government into submission yet again. Perhaps FFA should field candidates at the next election on an anti green tax manifesto. Car ownership an a relatively high mileage is essential for people to work in rural areas, so higher road fuel taxes are a direct extra income tax on the rural poor. It would appear that the rich in Britain care more about the " poor " in Africa than they do about the poor in their own country. Perhaps that is because they want to ethnically cleanse the poor from rural areas so that they can move in an take over the housing for second or third holiday homes. Is it any wonder that poor people on sinque estates in towns create antisocial behaviour and generally reject civilised society

Let me firstly state that I believe in 'green Issues'
I drive a 1988 VW Passat mk2 turbo diesel Estate. It passed it's last MOT with flying colours so it's 'roadworthy'! It has outlasted the production costs of maybe 3 or 4 cars. It gets 45 to 60mpg. It could run on vegetable oil if the Govt wasn't penalising/ taxing it's use. Although its engine size is 1588cc (bigger than the small engine discount allows) It is a very green car so what benefits/badges of honour will this Govt bestow on me? Free road tax? A discount card for fuel?

STERN REPORT
How do we know that temperatures have gone up by 0.5 deg C? Is this calculated by averaging out average global day and night temperatures? Was much done with the hard evidence of the data collected during the American grounding of their aircraft after the twin tower bombing; which resulted in a night time drop of 1 deg C (if I remember correctly?)
What was the environmental conditions that gave some of our deserts a green landscape? Won't increased sea surface area from flooding increase the cooling effect of the sea?
Why would GDP go down with less energy used for heating? GDP should go up in temperate zones!
I agree with a cut back on heavily polluting goods. Maybe limit air travel to once a year. (Transferable to those who require more for a fee)

Electric cars don't pollute at point of use but are inefficient and unless plugged into a green energy source just shifts pollution elsewhere. Diesel with electric regeneration is better for start stop journeys. Stirling heat engines are the way to go. See in NASA's hoarded data from Philips and other companys for informstion on this little known engine designed by Robert Stirling a Scotsman in 1816 and as used by NASA on their space trips as I write this.
Grow more trees. Stop insurance companies forcing mature tree removal in the name of subsidence prevention.

How much CO2 has be generated by the Bush-Blair bombing forays?

To finish here's three weather reports from the past:

Oct 30th 1785
"Set out for the Continent today to avoid Winter which has already begun severely; we have had snow twice. Till last year, I never knew snow in October since I can remember."
WALPOLE

Oct 31st 1779
"The season has been so serene in general, that I think the equinoctial tempests like the squadrons, have passed the autumn in harbour and that they will all come forth together"
WALPOLE

Nov. 3rd 1880 "We have leaves green unusually late this year, I think: but so I have thought often before, I am told. The last few nights have brought Frost however: and changed the countenance of all."
FITZGERALD

Global Warming? - Pl-ease

Global temperature variation long preceeds us. Fact

Aircraft Contrails moderate global warming. Fact

Dirty fuel and Industrial pollution and destruction of unique environments are by far the bigger threats. Fact

Deal with it Newsnight, and stop with these half-brained scare tactics: what next? "Invaders from Mars"?

The UK politicians are saying the right things but unless the planet walks the walk instead of a few talking the talk then nothing will really change.
Same old news being recycled again !!!

Labour's 1997 manifesto said "We will put concern for the environment at the heart of policy-making, so that it is not an add-on extra, but informs the whole of government, from housing and energy policy through to global warming and international agreements." This hasn't happened and emissions have in fact increased since 1997. Why should the Government's statements today be seen as anything more than a cynical, tactical response to the rebranding of the Tory party?
Furthermore, using the tax system to try and influence behaviour will always fail. Alcohol is subject to massive taxation, yet we are apparently in the midst of a binge drinking crisis.

Yet another sexed up dodgy dosier report from the labour government to scar us into what they want just like iraq and afganistan what quallifications does stern have to do this report not alone experiance? Once again another knee jerk reaction to conservatives ideas.

i missed out the 107 on my e-mail forgive the mistake

What about stoppping the wars immediately. Nobody is letting us know the carbon emitted in these activities but the first thought is to tax ordinary folk!

what is david millerbands quallifications is he just another mouth piece for so called scientists without any names to be brought forward for scrutiny

Is not 1% of GDP more likely to fund the shortfall in Civil Service pension funding than it is any interventionist measures as regards Global Warming. Ruth Kelley's Whte Paper on the future of Loal Government is very mild on the subject of Global Warming and even seems unaware of changes in the Building Regulations already in the pipeline.

Once again why are we being scared mongered into believing what this labour government tells us another sexed up dosier this will not wash with the general public we have been bitten once with the iraq war and this cant surly be accepted by the people of this great land again im no brain surgeon but surrly stop all thees lies blair and brown.

This is all very well, but "solving" global warming is going to require unprecedented cooperation and sacrifices from all the earth's nations. My gut feeling is that we will fail to meet this challenge.

Given that possibility, why is no one talking about a contingency plan for when we fail. What is the world going to look like like when the decomposing biomass hits the fan? and what do we need to be doing now to prepare for that less rosy future?

Why could Milliband not answer a straight forward question. What a plonker and typical of the current govenrment side tracking any direct questions asked.

climate change how they jump on the bandwagon....but hang on the science behind this is over 30 year old....we are told its getting too late to act..well yes we could have acted years ago...

michael fairless

what are the pannels quallifications to be able to deal with these problems ask them all before the end of the program for god sake im a diver if you want to me to make lgistations on global warming i dont think you would be asking the right man but that doesnt mean to say you can phone a friend

50 years to damn the arctic circle...like the great wall of china...damn drakes passage ...damn natal to Freetown across the equator! !?!? and connect the continents..the dedication of pyramids required...massive house sized bulldozers to dig out tidal shallows excavate the desserts and flood them...

We should print a new currency..a financial exchange product for the work.. the "Earthsave"

Benedict TLC Thought Leadership Companion to the world

WHAT A GREAT PROGRAMME! Quote Jeremy; 'Environment is at the political forefront' 'deserves the whole programme' GREAT keep em coming ... we can do it if we try :)
ps. love nature cos its lovely as well as necessary...

your pannel just got this off the back of a serial box no experiance no at all what are they all talking about.???

can we please ask all the pannel what experiance in this industry they all have because this program seems to be such a wast of tax payers money what is going on here???

The "Earthsave" A new currency to save the world..a financial exchange product for the work..no taxes required?

50 years to damn the arctic circle...like the great wall of china...damn drakes passage ...damn natal to Freetown across the equator! !?!? and connect the continents..the dedication of pyramids required...massive house sized bulldozers to dig out tidal shallows excavate the desserts and flood them...

We should print a new currency..a financial exchange product for the work.. the "Earthsave"

Benedict TLC Thought Leadership Companion to the world {engineer}

This shamefull government cant think of anythink else to send off tony blair with a legacy

There has not been much background research for the show tonight. If they look at India as a polluter, they should also notice an electric urban vehicle available in London for just over 拢8,000 has been made in India for many years. Who makes one in the UK?

Measures currently being taken to reduce global warming are grossly inadequate and ineffective.
I recently completed a project of living 12 months without any gas or electricity in my home just to show what can be done.
Meanwhile, we're moaning about converting to energy saving lightbulbs and the inconvenience of recycling.

Newsnight can you please give some scientific justifaction for your claims of impending climate "meltdown"?

All the predictions are based on computer generated climate models.

The people who have devised these models admit they might not be accurate.(Even the IPCC admits uncerainty in its models.)

There is great uncertainty in the role that other processes affect global climate, such as natural variation in the solar cycle, natural changes to the orbit of the Earth and the effects of volcanoes and variations in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

Politicians view
Lets get green/ Jump on the bandwagon.
Tell people they've got to pay more.
Tax people more(make more money!)Hoorah!

Scientists view
Lets get green/ Jump on the bandwagon.
There is money available in research grants that prove global warming exists.
Lets get some from the taxpayer.
Hoorah!

ps Do you want to pay me to properly research this subject?(i.e. give me some licence payers' money?)

The story of the squirrel & grasshopper before the climate-change act !!

REST OF THE WORLD VERSION:

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building
and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the
summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the
cold.

THE END

THE BRITISH VERSION:

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building
his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the
summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference
and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well
fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and
starving.

The 主播大秀 shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with
cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table
laden with food.

The British press inform people that they should be ashamed that in a
country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while
others have plenty.

The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Council of
GB demonstrate in front of the squirrel's house.

The 主播大秀, interrupting a cultural festival special from Nottinghill with
breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing "We Shall
Overcome".

Ken Livingstone rants in an interview with Trevor McDonald that the squirrel
has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate
tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his "fair share" and increases
the charge for squirrels to enter inner London.

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic
Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning
of the summer.

The squirrel's taxes are reassessed.

He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders
for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt
when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work.

The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial aid to furnish
it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially
mobile.

The squirrels' food is seized and re distributed to the more needy members
of society, in this case the grasshopper.

Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly
imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building
a new home.

The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary
home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as
they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival, they tried
to blow up the airport because of Britain's apparent love of dogs.

The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and
attempt bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them
pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody.

Initial moves to then return them to their own country were abandoned
because it was feared they would face death by the mice.

The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from peoples credit cards.

A Panorama special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the
squirrels food, though spring is still months away, while the council house
he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain the
house. He is shown to be taking drugs.

Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshoppers' drug
'illness'.

The cats seek recompense in the British courts for their treatment since
arrival in UK.

The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to
get money for his drugs habit.

He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody
for a few weeks.

He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise
him. Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery.

A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost 10,000,000 and state
the obvious, is set up.

Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for
grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is
increased. The asylum seeking cats are praised by the government for
enriching Britain's multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the
government for failing to befriend the cats.

The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press
blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of
despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of
prison. They call for the resignation of a minister.

The cats are paid a million pounds each because their rights were infringed
when the government failed to inform them there were mice in the United
Kingdom.

The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the
burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their
credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and
order and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a
shortfall in government funds.

THE END - or is it? The squirrel now will have to pay for overseas Grasshoppers abuse of climate-change abuses as well .. no wonder the UK has more emmigrants than Immigrants - those who can get out do !!

In the overall climate change argument I accept that this may be viewed as a rather 鈥榣ight weight鈥� comment but it annoys me intensely that drivers and owners of 4 X 4 vehicles are singled out whenever the subject of personal transport is discussed. Why do reporters who approach drivers on garage forecourts pick on 4 X 4 s.? There are many vehicles on the market with higher fuel consumption than the average 4 X 4, many saloons are fitted with four wheel drive systems, is it just that they are bigger in shape and easily identifiable. Picking on motorists purely on the appearance of their vehicle is discriminatory.
Why don鈥檛 the government scrap the vehicle excise licence completely and place all the tax on fuel, that way those that use the most pay the most. If you own a 鈥榞as guzzler鈥� and use it a lot you pay a lot but if you only drive it occasionally you are not paying a high tax bill for it to simply sit in your garage(not polluting the environment). Surely this fits exactly with the ethical argument that the polluter should pay.

yet another shamefull pannel from this government and our so called allies america are they ever going to come on boared with the kioto agreement or not does it matter with there bullishness around the world is it any wonder thet the muslims are off with the west now thanks whome so ever cares the west.

If Justin Rowlatt can't make cuts of more than 20% in his families carbon footprint with all the income and recources of the 主播大秀 behind him, there is no chance for the ordinary man in the street.

Having listened with interest to the various debates re climate change/carbon emmission reduction,I do feel one of the main domestic issues has been sidestepped by all,namely:- the move from Road back to Rail! If more money was ploughed into Public Tranport infrastructure,and,in particular Road Haulage moved to Railways,this would greatly help!

Nobody from the Govt seems prepared to appear on Newsnight whenever the issue might reflect upon them poorly, such as MoD, Iraq, the succession etc. Tonight we have Milliband, equally eloquent and arrogant, ordering the nation on a further diet of stealth taxes, and refusing to state that carbon tax proposals would be revenue neutral.

The Tory representative Lord Lawson made some startling comments, describing the whole case as a nonsense. The claims of Lord Lawson deserve to be tested in a dedicated programme. I wonder does he reflect the views of David Cameron who I believe drives a hybrid Lexus 4.3h, which has the poke of an 8 cylinder engine with the fuel efficiency of a 3 litre straight six? If Lawson is right, the world has not warmed in seven years, and the Government risks ignoring poverty, war and other immediate dangers to people by prioritising global warming, then we should worry.

A good program featuring Newsnight's best (JP, MK and the ethical man!).

I have a feeling that Milliband is engaged in an effort to become PM Brown's Chancellor. A government led by the dour Scot and a technocrat sidekick chancellor in the form of Milliband, together cooking up more ways of taxing us to death and after will hardly last. If only there was an opposition. I suspect they will generate far more carbon than they will save.

Love the thought of 50 years to damn the Arctic circle (27) - perhaps we could damn and blast it? And according to the intro we are pouring over the Stern report. Cold water, perhaps?

At last! The Govt has opened it's eyes but it can do far more by providing the investment for individuals in the home and business place to not only be consumers but also producers of energy.
This is smart energy (Decentralised Energy - DE) whereby individuals are empowered by the use of solar panels and micro wind turbines on their homes and business premises.

Woking Town Council have shown the way by adopting these initiatives through setting up DE networks and improving energy efficency thereby slashing their CO2 emissions by 77%. Countries like Denmark and Holland get 50% and 40% respectively of their power from DE. Ken Livingstone has already adopted these measures.

Finally, quote: "The technolgy exists to enable a radical overhaul of the way in which energy is generated, distributed and consumed - an overhaul whose impact on the energy industry could match the internet's impact on communications."
From the Economist Technology Quarterly.

I wish the likes of Nigel Lawson would seriously open his eyes before it's too late.

Time to get a move on!

For someone big enough to write such an important document, Sir Stern sounded rather unimpressive and unconvincing. He was quite easily upstaged by the Tory spokesperson. I do believe that the world is getting warmer. But Sir Stern's document seems rather far-fetched & guess-timating. Nobody took notice of the ethical man's experience, as to how impractical green lifestyle can be for an average family.

Surely you do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that excessive co2 emissions are caused by world over-population.
In this this country the need to to encourage people to breed more to counter future pension deficit is a fallacy.
This is like applying keynesian economic theory to the population problem - It did not work with economics either.
I watched both Cameron @ Milliband enthusing over green taxes, but both hinting at diverting taxes to families @ companies respectively.
They are brain dead.
If you do have green taxes the revenues must be directed at new technology - centers of excellence at universities, or, a central research facility as per WWII to solve technological problems to gain an advantage.
The fight against global warning is a war, the economic advantages are -If we develop the new technologies first, such as over-unity, we will be a global exporter.
Remember if we breed like flies - we will die lie flies.

Regards

Richard Bell

I absolutely love the timing of this.

I hope everyone is sufficiently frightened right now.

If the world is about to die, it doesn't mean much if we decide to invade some other countries, does it?

I wonder why the overwhelming consensus on this issue has only just been aired? A *Few* years too late ya think?

"We need china and india to sign up"

cough.

oh my.

Mr Paxman, please put a normal person in amongst that bunch of idiots you usually have.

Gav.

The question of what we do to prevent catastrophic climate change cannot properly be addressed without understanding the other crises we face. World demand for oil is at the point where it is beginning to outstrip supply. Unless the world economy goes into deep recession the price of oil will never again return to the level that it was before the Iraq war. With North Sea oil in decline we, in the UK, will be increasingly dependent on imports. Steep rises in energy prices coupled with the failure of the government to adequately raise pensions threatens a return to our shameful record of deaths by hypothermia. Green taxes are not really the answer and must be carefully judged if the poor are not to be hit hardest. The high price of oil compared with coal is likely to increase pressure to burn coal even though it is much more polluting than oil or gas.

The real solution (apart from energy conservation) is not taxes or carbon trading schemes but investment in renewable energy. We need more electricity generation not only to substitute for fosil fuels but as input into other technologies such as the generation of hydrogen.

Beware of the lies spread by the nuclear energy lobby and the likes of Nigel Lawson. Reputable electrical engineers will not tell you that wind generators require standby gas generation. The fact is that wind power is *more reliable* than a large conventional power station. The reason is that a conventional station could fail at any time whereas the wind spead over the whole country does not suddenly stop and start. To cope with sudden changes in supply and demand we use pumped storage hydroelectric stations. The main one is Dinorwig in North Wales but there are three smaller ones (one of which is under construction in Scotland). It only takes 30 minutes to start a gas-fired power station from scratch.

We have more than enough renewable energy in this country to provide all our needs. While rapid expansion of wind generation is the best immediate prospect we should be pressing ahead with tidal energy since the tides are highly predictable. Note that Denmark generates 20 percent of its energy from wind. Germany generates 4 percent and is the leading exporter of wind generators. It reached this position by subsidising farmers. Our government should be finding the finance to enable local communities to install various forms of microgeneration.

The cost of tackling climate change, and the government鈥檚 proposed action was described as being 鈥渓ibertarian paternalism鈥�. This is a very clear expression that appears to mean what it says although Jeremy Paxman sees it as a big laugh. Strange then that being green as a trivial replacement for caring for the environment is seeminly serious.

To tackle climate change we need an industrial revolution as significant as the first. This is only going to happen with leadership and direction from governments. This cannot be dictated to us and work. Our liberty is necessary to follow and implement.

The apparent libertarian paternalism approach looks good. Let鈥檚 hear more.

Yes, before I go to bed tonight I have read all the comments by other viewers with great interest.

Basically it's no use all you lot and myself talking about it it's time to do something about it.

How many of you are committed environmentalists/conservationists like myself?

How many of you have lobbied the Govt, your MP and in my case also the Welsh Assembly Govt on the issue of the environment, climate change, global warming etc, etc?

How many of you seriously take the issue of recycling seriously? I certainly do as I sort out 99% of the materials/waste such as paper, glass, plastics, etc my mother and myself produce! The remaining 1% are tissues and the like.

Finally, before I go to the 'Land of Nod' I would just like to say to Andrew Ellis your spelling, language (sometimes foul) etc are disgraceful! Get hold of a good dictionary.

Get a life, man! Find youself a woman or something!

Dear Sirs,
As a traditional blacksmith who has had to give up his trade through illness, I for the past ten years I have been studying all aspects of global warming.
My findings are that man is not responsible for global warming. But I have found a perfectly plausible and simple alternative for global warming. The problem is it contravenes existing belief, this along with the fact that I lack any professional qualifications I have not been able to find a single 鈥減rofessional鈥� that will even look at my findings.

I deplore you to allow me audience.

Yours Sincerely
Roy William Masters
(Master Blacksmith)

Jeremy how silly your interviews are becoming. Your interuptions were boring and quite dim. Grandstanding with Miliband asking him about tax policy he clearly is not allowed to answer because that is Gordon Brown's job. Why should he tell you what is in his bill before he publishes it? You stupidly missed the real significance of today's announcements and failed to grill the minister on the truly scary issues. Extending carbon trading was the key part of today that Newsnight seemed to totally miss. Weren't you watching Channel 4 News tonight? Perhaps you should more often.

I was surprised and disappointed that the erudite Mr Paxman did not take Mr Milliband to task for talking about 'carbon emissions', 'carbon trading', etc.
It at best shows laziness and at worst displays ignorance, to use the word 'carbon' as a shorthand version of 'carbon dioxide'.
Carbon in its most usual form is a solid black substance. In none of its forms is it a colourless gas.

By the way, in the information on the web pages referring to Monday night's program, your compiler doesn't know that one doesn't pour over a topic but, rather, one pores over it!

I think the issue is how to solve a cross partisan, cross country issue like global warming when our political system is the complete opposite. Lib Dems came across as a bit churlish I thought.
Still Labour is not off the hook here, as usual their approach is more monitoring, more dictating, (more cost). Labours answer to everything - be it tax credits, speed cameras, child rearing, and now the environment.
It is so big brother "we can't trust you to save the planet so we'll make you" . As discussed in the programme this is about risk , inform us of the facts and let us be socially responsible ourselves. We make decisions to incorporate the environment, safety, economy, we don't take decisions in isolation. Let us be the best judge!

One major possible attack upon the global warming problem seems to have been overlooked completely.

The military budget, research and development effort and associated resources should be switched from creating new weapons to devising and manufacturing alternative energy sources. This would be more effective than piddling about with taxes, which appears to be all the MPs can manage !

#47 Tell us more about these engines that dont run on oil based products.

So if we are going to tax "bad", how are we going to promote "good".

Money taken from green taxes are supposed to be distributed to encourage positive behaviour. Can I suggest removing VAT on all bicycles between the value of 拢300 (below this is rubbish and therefore not "green") and 拢500 (above this is a rich persons toy).

Obviously this would have to be among a number of positive incentives. What else should be on the list?

Having listened to news night last night and read the comments on News night blogs I have come to the conclusion that we, as a matter of behavior, latch onto sound bites that have been fed to us by the media and politicians over the years.
K Marsend wrote: What effect will Britain have on the world's emissions? As a country, our savings would be virtually zero. The sound bite that has been latched onto hear is that its been reported that if we reduce our carbon emissions to zero China will produce the same over night? But is this a reason to do nothing?
Chris wrote Does anyone else remember ``The Club of Rome''? It wasn't the climate then but over-population. The sound bite here was 鈥淟imits to Growth鈥� a classical text book used in universities across the world. But did technology save us. I think not, it was the model that was wrong in the first instance!
Martyn Marsh wrote: Well here we go again Tax, Tax and more Tax. Again the media has shown the Chancellor being underhanded in resolving his budget deficit
Christopher Thoday wrote: The question of what we do to prevent catastrophic climate change cannot properly be addressed without understanding the other crises we face. World demand for oil is at the point where it is beginning to outstrip supply. When again this media news is incorrect. Speak to any oil man in the know!
The facts for me are these:
1)The Chancellor is having difficulty in raising sufficient funds for his programmers and in introducing CO2 gas tax will undoubtedly solve his problem. If the chancellor has real sincerity over his concern on global warming the tax鈥檚 raised should be set aside for technological inventions or third world investment to solve the issue of CO2 emission. Nothing else.
2) There is global warming but no one knows for sure if this is cyclic or not. All scientific models have their faults.
3) We all reap what we sow. Whether it be the politic party in power, global warming or the tax鈥檚 we pay. We have to live with it or have the guts to change
4) If CO2 emissions are causing Global Warming the green party and its lobbyists has done more damage to the environment by stopping worldwide development of Nuclear Power than any other group in the world. For it is nuclear power that will solve, in the short term, 鈥淕lobal鈥� CO2 issues than any other
5) Politicians and the media put a spin on all issues to gain leverage, support or profit and as a consequence we should not latch onto sound bite just because they are topical. Find the facts, if you can and then judge them for yourself.
6) I recycle all my waste for the benefit of the world and the future of my children. However, the plastic, paper and other combustible waste is shipped to China and burnt to produce power creating CO2 emissions. The world leaders need to lead from the front, be true and honest in their dealing.

Why have I been refused to post a log on this?

What a marvellous debate last night at the end of a rather disappointing Newsnight ( emissions were confused with CO2 emissions for instance). The confrontation of uber ambitious David Miliband and the author of a less a heralded report of July 2005, Nigel Lawson, was tremendous viewing. To see the Environment Minister squirming when the science was questionned was brilliant, especially as the statistics were quoted directly from a press release by the US Senate.

Spelling, spelling....since when has the plural of gas been spelled "gasses"! Sorry, but spelling mistakes just hit me in the eye!

Self-importance & the resultant emotional immaturity are the greatest threat we face. Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't grow on trees, nor does it come ready-packed with public office and no amount of money or intellect can solve this problem.

The discussion highlighted the urgent need for deeper and longer discussions which would enable Mr Paxman and others to elicit more from politicians than their usual soundbite responses.
The debate like political action is agonisingly slow in its development.
I am dismayed and piuzzled about the lack of imagination in response to the crisis.
Why is the concept of domestic carbon rationing not being discussed?
This is a much more progressive solution than green taxes which will not work because no government will impose taxes that are punitive enough to bring about the changes needed.
I hope that newsnight presenters and editors will familiarise themselves with the idea of domestic carbon rationing so that they are able to explore the idea with future interviwees.

The discussion highlighted the urgent need for deeper and longer discussions which would enable Mr Paxman and others to elicit more from politicians than their usual soundbite responses.
The debate like political action is agonisingly slow in its development.
I am dismayed and piuzzled about the lack of imagination in response to the crisis.
Why is the concept of domestic carbon rationing not being discussed?
This is a much more progressive solution than green taxes which will not work because no government will impose taxes that are punitive enough to bring about the changes needed.
I hope that newsnight presenters and editors will familiarise themselves with the idea of domestic carbon rationing so that they are able to explore the idea with future interviwees.

I would like to note Lord Lawson did not display sense compared with the others- contrary to an above opinion.
Infact he reminded me a great deal of Sir Ingham, in a debate at the BRLSI with a professor, called 'Nuclear Unclear', in which he believed nuclear waste was only a problem for a hundred years or so.
I believe there is indeed a spectrum of opinion on climatic change, and most views are subjective. However I have seen irrefutable data to correlate CO2 levels with world temperatures.
They are plotted over hundreds of years thanks to ice core samples, amongst other methods.
There is a sharp trend up in the CO2 emissions over recent years, most probably resulting from human activity.
The graph of these emission levels matches, almost precisely, that of global temperatures.
This is data, not opinion, and in my view supports the arguments for reduction in emissions.

What was sadly omitted from the debate last night was any mention of the melting of the permafrost. This is resulting in a 'runaway' effect in emissions, in particular methane, which is many times more harmful than CO2. This massive area of Siberia thawing as we speak, and will result in a point of no return, where the efect is irreversible.

Basically, this means that static analysis cannot be applied here, and in my view, we face trouble far sooner than the Tyndall, or Stern reports indicate. I have heard these events described as 'climate catastrophy' by the former minister for the environment, Michael Meacher, who seemed optomistic about, if also extremely concerned by the issue.

And regardless of global warming issues, sustainable development is the only sensible course of action in the 21st century. To introduce microgeneration, micro-CHP and other technologies in a balanced and effective manner will help deal with the UKs energy crisis whether cutting CO2 levels matters, or not.

I would also like to indicate to those who argue against such measures, to look into history at Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and what happens when we strain limited resources, renewable or not, and damage our environment.
That, or study ecological footprint analysis, life cycle analysis, whole life costing efforts and other tools.

The vast majority of scientists, and engineers, architects etc I have encountered believe this is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. This is no longer a case os Cassandra complex for 'greenies', as the wealth of scientific evidence of our impacts on our surroundings is growing exponentially.
But the action on this still stalls, sadly.

How come Jeremy lets David Milliband away with the comment that the Labour government used the climate change levy to reduce National Insurance, thus making it revenue neutral, Er no, big Gordy stuck National Insurance up in 2004.

He also got away with saying he wasnt surprised Mrs Thatcher couldnt put up with Nigel Lawson as a neighbour. Classic New Labour tactics, if you say something true but which I dont like, I'll slag you off unfairly for something totally unrelated to what we're talking about. Nigel Lawson was about the only person on the programme who said anything sensible.

So should we accept radical new taxes and even more radical lifestyle changes to prevent this supposed (imagined) impending catastrophe. Well, no.

Look at who's telling us this. The enviromental movement is stuffed full of unrecostructed anti capitalist lefties, who a generation ago would have been selling secrets to the Russians. Climate change is merely their latest attempt to push their agenda. Every problem is greatest for the poor and every solution is more tax. Well try this. If the effects of climate change are most felt by the poor, surely the solution is for people to get richer. I.E. More global trade, economic growth, free markets. Asia and Africa get richer and all of a sudden they can cope a lot better with anything coming their way. At any rate once they're rich they'll no longer be deserving of the Eco-mentalists support, so we won't have to put up with the moral blackmail.

What policies do you need to make this happen. Oddly enough, exactly the opposite to those the Eco loones want. I.E. Globalisation, economic growth, free markets.

Isnt it strange that a report commissioned by a Chancellor who has shown himself to be an unrepentant over taxer concludes the answer to this is more tax. What a surprise.

50 years ago we had coal fires, coal burning trains, coal power stations & coal fired foundries. Smog & respiratory diseases killed thousands & the pollution was appalling. Today we have electric cenbtral heating, nuclear power stations, gas fired generators & electric trains, yet the atmosphere is apparently more polluted? Cars, lorries etc. have to be the prime culprit as nothing else(apart from a few planes)has increased in such huge numbers, but nothing is done to restrict their usage because of the money they raise for the Govt. And if your going bust you need every penny!!

Justin& Family have seemingly given their all, in their attempts to be totally Ethical, & yet still only saved 30%, what more could he have done? in the name of Ethical Man..maybe get a divorce.
If his attempts are the benchmarks for all of us...I fail!
What a brave man, trust you are recognising his services beyond the normal call of duty.

if 40% world peoples to die, then over-population problem any more will not be. It is necessary to wait only

ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES?

If I was a cynic, perhaps the idea of new taxes ('renewable' variety) will have the incumbent chancellor (perhaps new leader) drooling at thought of a new source of 'unlimited' revenue.

Effectively a licence to tax anything you can claim effects the environment i.e. virtually anything :(

Such would offset some of the financial mistakes of the decade (buying time only*) of this Tax Stealthy but Spend The Same chancellor.

* time wise Gordon only needs to Bluff his way into next election & perhaps one term after.

Now that 'Prudence' now has the opportunity to spend our inheritance as well (fiscal & planetary speaking), all Brown has ineffectively done is offset his further debts for payment by our generation as well as the next to labour under this inherited burden (by which time he will be retired & then buried).

For a long while, it seems as if 'Prudence' regressed into her childhood & as a teenager has gone doolally [1] with the notion of unlimited credit **

** perhaps the New Born Baby Credit was the result of Brown's guilt knowing he had intentionally burdened the next generation with payment for the failures of his chancellorship [2]

'The Spend' of New Labour has had some impact (should have given Brown spent enough of our billions) but New Labour failed to reform & where it started to reform, then failed to finish & failed to deliver (education, education, education).

Watching the Brown Blair combo of justification for a new wave of Tax & Spend against their litany of failure to deliver (unreformed agencies & institutions) reminds me of the bucket with hole game in "Its A Knockout"

Our Stuart Hall is Tony Blair (goading & tacking the proverbial from the sidelines) & the Team Joker still at play is the dour scott Gordon Brown, who starts of with a fiscal full bucket, then a combination of obstacles, lack of 'balance' & rather large holes in his container, means very little 'water' finally gets delivered (3 trips so far & potentially a 4th to go).

The only thing environmental about the incoming wave of Green Taxes will be the multiple uses Brown & New Labour will put them too.

Labour has had 11 years to plug the holes in our national bucket & has singularly failed to do so - why trust them with a 4th attempt?

Given the context of Brown burgeoning Tax record over the last decade, his 'give aways' (such as Baby Credit) are as palatable as a mugger giving change to the victim & expecting gratitude.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2]

Wouldn't we like to see energy- saving coming from the top? Go down Whitehall any late evening and all the Ministries lights are blazing away, and probably the heating too. I don't suppose the Government car pool is affected, either. Those who advocate carbon taxes ought to try and live the life of many of us, paying bills with our own money. Life has just become a bill-paying exercise and my green efforts have long been dictated by necessity as well as ethics.

Funny, politicians only think in terms of more taxes, never rationing of one sort or another. The latter would show up which of them exceed their share of homes, cars and utilities consumption - plus rationing wouldn't replenish Gordon's coffers. I expect the war in Iraq (expended war weapons emitting toxic gases of all sorts) is leaving him a bit short. Did anyone else notice that the Government only talked tough after they saw Cameron getting Brownie points because of his green stance?

It would be nice if the wasteful Olympics were cancelled as not holding that particular daftness would help the planet no end. Carting foodstuff hither and thither round the planet is one of our worst ideas.

It doesn't look like anything will convince the doubters. Especially not those paid by some oil companies.

Stern's carbon trading is just what one would expect someone from the financial world to promote. But, as so often with innovative financial trading, it is shot through with shady opportunities, verification difficulties, and lots of incentives and lack of real penalties for cheats. Who is really ever going to be able to audit a concern's carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide) emissions? It cannot be metered. And once it's into the atmosphere it cannot be retreived. The record on imposing significant sanctions on businesses for trading scandals is laughable. Carbon trading will largely be seen as another way to make money, with minimal benefit for the atmosphere.

Surely some of his predictions are way too optimistic; when Bangladesh alone would produce 133 million refugees from raising sea level, at present figures, and many of the world's largest cities would be submerged, there will be a far larger number needing new land and more major economic disruptions than he suggests. Investment in the military will pay off then, if there's the oil to power the weaponry.

As someone already said, the UK hasn't even ordered any more nuclear power stations. Indeed the government recently sold the nuclear construction company. We should have been buildng, using, and exporting them as fast as we could. Ones as safe, as long-lasting, and as economical as possible. And the technology to facilitate their output to be used as widely as possible, not least for transport.

I don't see any of the big planning decisions that only government can make that would save energy massively. Instead I see many of the opposite effect. And I see the PM jetting all around the globe. It looks like thinking, and living in the very short term.

I think that, for the UK government this is mostly just words. Twenty years ago, before India and China really moved towards mass industrialisation and being consumer societies, before air travel became really cheap (for some), before the 4x4 and patio heater mentality took hold, we might have had a chance, but Big Oil, Reagan and Thatcher's blind market economics, and simple-minded green campaigning, not to mention endless middle-east conflict and religious and right-wing nutters all looked the other way. As Stern said, the maths was there 150 years ago. I think humankind is doomed.

Remind me, it was Britain that was the first to start burning millions-of-years-old carbon deposits for energy, wasn't it, for steam, then for coke for iron? If so we sure started something. Does anyone know if any of the great thinkers of that time foretold of the fate we now face?

I think its fair to say we dont stand much chance of fixing the planet; we're too divided, within the community and between nations, and we lack leadership - especially globally, especially now. I bid that programmes like newsnight tackle this post-Stern reality, change the tempo of their climate chaos coverage - and pursue it from this realistic 'bolted horses' position, hammering away at how leaders and citizens are proposing to handle the upcoming crisis.

Simple fix, in order to prevent "Global Warming" LOL (and NO, I am NOT paid off by some oil company) is a global fascist dictatorship (look up fascism if you don't get it), then we can all suddenly be 'safe' from global warming

If only there were some way to transmit my laughter to you, reader, global warming is utter sh*te and no mistake, read the small print, ask yourself why lions stalked what is now London, thousands of years ago...and NOTE that high level contrails MODERATE the ground temperature

This 'consensus' of scientists are playing us all for chumps

There are PLENTY of real environmental issues that 'evil' CO2 reduction DOES NOT deal with

It suits the corporogovernment very well for YOU and I to feel bad, pay more tax, and believe we're changing anything, whilst they continue to mess everything up same as before

How can anyone not understand that the planet is getting warmer ? As this effect is not produced by the sun the moon or all the twinkly stars the cause therefore must be right here on earth. Lets rule out volcanic activity for a start as a cause of global warming as there is no significantly increased volcanic activity on the planet. So what is the cause of melting glaciers, ice caps, increasingly violent weather systems, expanding deserts producing more ever frequent droughts in Africa ?
The answer is human activity and the amount of energy consumed by combusting fossil hydrocarbons such as oil and coal particularly over the last three hundred years, which hithertofore has been buried safely beneath the earths surface right here on earth. There are unfortunately a lot of wasters that inhabit this world, living in denial or fear of cutbacks and modification to their profligate ways of living the end of whose world is nigh and they just cant hack the end of fossil fuel greed and even worse are not prepared for changes which inevitable will come.

I was surprised by the naive comments of many Newsnight viewers on this blogsite. I was under the impression that Newsnight was broadcast for the intelligent and well informed and was integral to British political debate and analysis. Some of these comments are the barely unintelligible mutterings of a bunch of infantile dunces, like the half witted Faiz trying to defend the political integrity of the Lib Dems in the manner of General Custard from the grubby thieving attentions of those masters of policy theft - New Labour ! Get a life Faiz ! It was Wavy Davy Cameron (wot a beautiful head of hair the boy has!) wot started the Green Revolution, when he cycled his bike to Parliament that day slightly ahead of his briefcase lying on the back seat of his (otherwise empty!) gas guzzling limo. So there !

Er, report about Genesis. And no info on the website. 40 Mins of midterm elections with utterly no-one in the UK actually interested. And then no info on the main story... hey ho.

I'll tune in as a relief to insonmia tomorrow.

In respect of the news that three CIA black ops specialists were in the hotel at the time of RFK's assassination, it is worth remembering that Richard Nixon was Prescott Bush's chosen one. He never forgave JFK for beating Nixon in 1962 and would have hated the idea of RFK beating him in 1968. Add George H.W. Bush's long standing connections to the CIA's Cuban operations - and that he later became Director of Central Intelligence - and the implications of the report are truly frightening for what America has become.

Has ANYONE got a copy of this programme I can have? Need it for my A-Level English project but my mum accidentially recorded over it and I'm stuck without a copy.

Help

Has ANYONE got a copy of this programme I can have? Need it for my A-Level English project but my mum accidentally recorded over it and I'm stuck without a copy.

Help

What is needed in the global warming debate is a debate about the ongoing conspiracy between successive governments and the scientific community. Conspiracy is a strong word but fits the bill. The conspiracy works like this.....
We need the scientific community. Without them, one day a plague or such could be visited upon us with the most harmful consequences (bird flu, smallpox etc etc). So, we have to keep them in reserve at great cost. You can't just pull a scientist out of the hat like a rabbit can you. These scientists like ourselves need to live and pay their bills in between crises. Governments have to foot the bill of course and this is done by awarding research grants to them to keep them busy. These research grants have to be justified to us the taxpayer, so what better way than to create a panic about something (BSE, Global warming etc). I remember when BSE was the current topic and we were warned that we would all get it maybe 30 years in the future because we had all eaten infected material and that it was possible to transfer the disease to any mammal through its foodchain. I reasoned at the time that dogs (a mammal) had been eating this infected offal for years and as the life rate for a dog is seven times faster than a human it is not unreasonable to assume that they would be the first to suffer our fate. But where is the epidemic in the canine population? I don't see queues of owners outside the vets with wobbly dogs, do you. But now the scientific community have moved onto the latest scare, they are happy to let this issue wither on the vine and hope we don't get smart about it.
I was listening to a scientist about global warming who let it slip that the creatures responsible for 98% yes 98% of greenhouse gas emmissions are termites which exist in every temperate area or the world and gorge themselves on wood and emit methane all of their lives (methane is many many times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2). I haven't heard it since, it doesn't suit their argument of course. After they have gorged themselves on grants and it appears that the public are getting wise to that one, another panic will be put about that will qualify for generous handouts. Don't get me wrong, I am not against the cospiracy as we need a scientific community, but please, treat us like adults and not children.

Greetings to the author of this page. Nice site, keep up the good work