PowerSwitch

At the UK' Tyndal Centre (UEA) Ming C gave an unprecedented speech on the need for, and requirements of, addressing fossil fuel dependence.

This issue is at last opening up in tandem with PO.

An excerpt :

" . . .international change requires moral leadership at the highest
level. Leadership internationally is best achieved through setting an
example and maintaining the high ground. If Britain can demonstrate the
advantages of a low carbon economy, we can lead the debate on how to
control climate change.

But instead of leading, this government has been going backwards not
forwards on climate change. And the Conservatives are complicit. They
both speak of a need to ?search for? a new framework to control
emissions after the current round of Kyoto targets runs out in 2012.

There is no need to look very far. There is a framework in place which
has the support of the European Parliament, and of many other countries.

It is called Contraction and Convergence, and the Lib Dems have been
speaking about it since 2001.

Sir David King, the Government Chief Scientist, said in a recent report
that 550 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere was too much, and
that we would reach that level by 2050 if we continue as we are.

International agreement should start with what is an acceptable amount
of emissions, what is an acceptable amount of climate change. It should
not start ? as Kyoto did ? with what is ?acceptable? to governments.

There is a finite amount of emissions that the world can take before
2050. We have to share out pollution judiciously, and ultimately,
equally. Relative targets linked to GDP or how much a country feels it
can reduce are not only unworkable, but our grandchildren may well view
such political weakness criminal. There must be an absolute ceiling on
emissions from which an international agreement works back.

International, and by extension, national targets are a necessary part
of measuring and monitoring change. Accepting that we are using more
than our fair share of carbon while actively seeking to reduce it is the
starting point for a sensible international conversation about national
emissions budgeting.

And cutting emissions now in fact would increase our bargaining power
with other nations over the next few years as the world seeks
agreement."

The full speech is in the "Frequently Updated News" page of :

www.gci.org.uk

Please now back the C&C Bill in the House of Commons: -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 006092.htm


regards,

Bill

This shows why I was right to back Ming for leader. This is a well argued speech unlike much of what passes for political debate.

I personally think the party will accept predictions of an early peak to oil supplies well before Labour or the Conservatives. However, I personally am not concentrating my efforts on that.

johnhemming wrote:However, I personally am not concentrating my efforts on that.

Can I ask why you're not concentrating on that area?

I am concentrating on trying to change the conventional wisdom.

The party will switch relatively easily and in any event the party accepts the logic of the argument that we need to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

The cause of the need is not key.

There are quite a few people in the party who share my view that the peak production is in the relatively near future if it is not now.

To me the key litmus test for any party on fossil fuel usage is whether or not they accept the arguments in the aviation white paper that there will be a massive growth in Air Flight. If they support they white paper then they are not serious.

John -

while air flight policy is a large and juicy target of demonstrable folly,

with an untouched issue of corrupt greenwash in terms of the sale of dishonest "Carbon Neutrality" (in which both NL & the Ts are now complicit),

I wonder how useful it is as a means to marry the GW + PO issues into a single concern with filler-cap, armchair & tailpipe components ?

Given that C&C is prerequisite to the utility of any national efforts on energy-demand calming & sustainable supply, and yet too rarely gets the sort of attention Ming has just given it,
could you clarify just what is the conventional wisdom that you seek to overturn ?

regards,

Bill

This particular "conventional wisdom" is that either
a) Oil will never peak ... or
b) The peak production for oil is some generation or so away.

I do think that the implications of depletion involve a greater reduction in consumption than Kyoto.