38 Degrees Logo38 Degrees Logo 38 Degrees Logo

Lib Dems vote for tougher climate action!

September 25th, 2012 by

Great news! After hand delivering hundreds of copies of our climate change petition on Monday morning, the Lib Dems voted strongly in favour of tougher climate action, including backing a 2030 target for carbon-free electricity. It’s a great start, but together we need to keep up the pressure to make sure that George Osborne doesn’t block these new targets.

See below to read more about our petition hand-in at the Lib Dem conference!

On Sunday evening the 38 Degrees team boxed up the 32,000-strong climate change petition and travelled down to ‘sunny’ Brighton to hand in our people powered message to the Lib Dem party.

We hand delivered our huge petition straight to the Climate Secretary Ed Davey, calling on the Lib Dems to take a stand on a climate change and back the motion to get carbon emissions under control by 2030.

David delivering over 32,000 signatures to Climate Secretary Ed Davey

He responded positively to the vast number of signatures supporting tougher climate action. The same day he called on the members of his party to back the vote the next morning and support the 2030 target!

On the day of the climate vote we teamed up with local 38 Degrees members to deliver our people powered  message to the rest of the Lib Dem party.

We were up bright and early in the pouring rain to try and catch voting Lib Dems before they went in to the conference. Due to tough security there was only one main entrance to the conference centre – so we made sure that the 38 Degrees message was the last thing Lib Dems heard before they went in to make their decision.

Armed with our ‘Vote Yes’ flyers we delivered the 38 Degrees message to hundreds of Lib Dem members who passed through our climate change gateway to get inside the conference.

Many Lib Dems responded encouragingly to the thousands who signed the petition urging them to get serious on tackling climate change.

Despite the soggy leaflets and broken umbrellas the team felt confident that our huge climate petition could spur the Lib Dems to vote the right way!

Local 38 Degrees members brave the weather to deliver our climate message to Lib Dems in Brighton

Posted in 38 Degrees Blog Posts

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • http://www.optical-minefield.co.uk/ Adam

    That really is amazing news. I know you will let us all know how we can keep the pressure up to make sure its more than just words. Well done all the 38 Degrees staff and members.

  • Les

    Fantastic that members are prepared to give up their time and go out in such weather to play their part.

  • Penny

    The Lib Dems were always going to be the easier target. Now we must tackle the Conservative conference in the same way, and more so! After all, George Osborne is starting to look like a climate change-denier.

  • Peter Simmons

    The problem still is the Tories, many of them are more interested in big business than climate, and they can be swayed by people like Nigel Lawson, paid anti-climate change lobbyist and disseminator of disinformation, and virulent campaigner against wind power. And all politicians of every party chime ‘growth, growth, growth’ as the solution for all ills, when it’s uncontrolled growth which has caused the impending climate catastrophe. They want their cake and eat it!

  • kevaquarian

    I believe in and support sustainability in all areas of life, including clean energy. I am also absolutely pro-clean air and pollution reduction. However, this whole carbon thing is just what they want us to keep banging on about. You’re playing into their hands when you press for carbon measures. They will happily keep using oil, slap a big tax on us punters, while letting off the big corps – watch it happen. You guys are lambs to the slaughter whilst emissions are the main focus. I urge you to spread the focus to the topics I mention at the start of this comment, and do some (non-mainstream) research into the carbon stuff…

  • TJ Hart

    Great work by 38degrees, but today we hear that 20 new gas-fired power plants are to be built. How can the LibDems say that they are campaigning for action against climate change when they support the govt in expanding fossil fuel dependence and tax breaks for North Sea oil. If as much time, effort and money was thrown at power storage (the main problem with reliance on renewables) we could be making great headway towards energy security AND low carbon. Words need to be translated into ACTION.

  • chapter24

    Good work! For a pressure group there’s nothing more important than climate change action. We can’t help the inexorable collapse of the finance system, but we can try to raise awareness of the much greater challenges posed by a destabilised climate. So while I think that 38 degrees is great, my vote would be to focus effort on the environment, both because it’s the main issue and because the money system will take down a lot of things with it that we can’t do much about (public services, etc).

    Not sure I can provide a concise suggestion about how to do this, other than we must somehow break the false choice between the environment and money. That’s a bit like saying you can get richer by raiding your piggy bank. Telling people they must be poorer is a hard sell, so my view is that we must make people realise there’s a fixed store of non-renewable wealth in the world, and growth is just drawing it down faster, leading to a harsher future.

  • wookey

    Well done for making the effort is such delightful weather.

    kevaqurian: Are you suggesting that CO2e emissions are not a problem? Or that carbon taxes are not an effective tool? Emissions have to be the main focus as that’s the fundamental problem. I’m sure we’re all for demand reduction too but that’ll be an even harder sell, especially for the Tories. You hear them all chanting ‘growth, growth’ on a daily basis. Very few people shouting ‘sustainability before growth’ yet.

  • cornaby

    That is good news, but I want to say what has happened to solar panels? This is such a good way to harness energy. I do not understand why new build houses aren’t immediately fitted with solar panels. The technology has improved tremendously, they can be fitted easily and are not so heavy as previously, so old roofs can be used. They don’t spoil the landscape, make no noise yet produce energy without scorching sunshine. Please promote solar panels. I know that the FIT scheme, (which pannicked this Government because it was such a good scheme) was halved, because commercial premises and farmers had whole roofs and fields full of panels which sort of scuppered the deal. There perhaps should be a restriction of panels for very large installations which would make domestic solar panels much more attractive and profitable.

  • spottyginger

    I may be cynical, but I get the feeling that the Lib-Dems know that whatever they say will be just like spitting into the wind, as their opinion will carry no weight in Parliament.

  • Alex Wasyliw

    Congratulations on handing out hundreds of pieces of paper that used trees to produce, now need energy to recycle, or will end up in landfill to convince the Lib Dems to vote for something that they have consistantly voted for at conferences over the past 10 years and more. Honestly, I know you meant well over this, but the vote was pretty much unanimous, which to anyone who has ever been to or wtached conference, or spoken to Lib Dem party members will be completely unsurprised by. Lib Dem policy is proposed by members, debated by ordinary members (and here’s an important point, no matter how obvious a policy proposal seems, no matter how much it seems everyone agrees, it is always debated and people’s views and experience heard before voting) and then voted on by ordianry party conference goers. This is unique amongst any of the three main parties and is the main reason why, whatever thew government was doing and however much pressure the Lib Dem Ministers and Secretaries might have been under, the actual Party Policy vote was always going to support the green agenda. They have always insited that geen technology, business and manufacturing is a vital part of the economic recovery, in fact this topic was mentioned in every single speech that touched upon the economy, and played a big part in various associated policy proposals (which were also supported and voted through as party policy). It is now up to Lib Dem MP’s strengthened by party backing and a thorough party policy to take this in to government and try and get as much of it enacted (there is a lot more than just sticking to targets previously agreed in the policy, indeed I believe it sets out further targets to aim for) as government policy as possible. This is where a wider based campaign by 38 degrees could really help. They want to do it, they are mandated by their party to try, but the Tory’s are very much not on board with the green agenda. Although letting people know they have your support is always valuable to some degree, please don’t belittle the dedication of many Lib Dem ordinary party members to the green cause. They are on your side and they do want to do this.

  • chapter24

    The only way to influence the big business parties is a growing popular consensus. Otherwise they will just follow the money, which at the moment is geared towards exploitation rather than sustainability.

    Take the absurd fuss raised about John Terry’s ‘racist’ sledging of a black footballer. That’s because of a multi-decade campaign to change social beliefs and conventions. The same thing needs to happen for climate change, where denial and promotion of pollution is socially unacceptable. Sadly I don’t think we have time for the conventional approach (smoking, racism, etc), and will rely on disasters to help change minds faster.

  • Doug Sinnott

    Great!
    Let’s cover Britian with ugly,massively inefficient,windmills,and all you sandal wearing veggies will all be happy!
    More nuclear is the only way!
    Climate change could be a natural phenomenon anyway,and whatever these Lib Dems saddos decide will make no difference,and any proposals made,because of the impact on already high fuel bills,will not happen,apart from a bit of tinkering around the edges.
    Even if we completely eliminated carbon dioxide emissions to morrow,China and India produce as much in a week,as we turn out in a year.
    And all the burning of tropical forests,what about those emissions?
    Get a life!

  • Alex Wasyliw

    It really isn’t. Party members (ordinary party members – the people who propose, debate and vote for policy) have pretty much unanimously voted for higher green targets, green investment and green policies in general at conferences going back years and years now.

    I applaud 38 degrees intentions over this, but to belittle the commitment of many people who support the same cause is unhelpful.

  • Alex Wasyliw

    Ironically we do need significant growth in the sustainable technology sector to achieve a green, carbon zero, less wasteful and sustainable future.

  • sadal

    I did not sign the petion . I believe that Britains contribution to world polution is so small after Thatcher closed down our industry to be of little concern.
    We now need jobs and industry. if you want to control polution then the best way is to stop the ever increasing demand . This would entail stopping the birth explosion and in this country it could be done by stopping to pay people to breed . Next we need a reliable energy supply and Im afraid that wind solar and wave will not give a constant power supply So we have to go cleaned up COAL OR NUCLEAR. THINK ON IT LONG AND HARD
    REALIST AL

  • GW

    Great. Well done everyone. The well being of the planet we live on is clearly number 1 priority. Let’s keep moving on this with mindfulness, taking nothing for granted. Every little step is important.

  • Alex Wasyliw

    @ ”
    TJ Hart • 19 minutes ago −+Flag as inappropriateGreat work by 38degrees, but today we hear that 20 new gas-fired power plants are to be built. How can the LibDems say that they are campaigning for action against climate change when they support the govt in expanding fossil fuel dependence and tax breaks for North Sea oil. If as much time, effort and money was thrown at power storage (the main problem with reliance on renewables) we could be making great headway towards energy security AND low carbon. Words need to be translated into ACTION.”

    I share your concerns. The problem is funding. The majority of government funding on energy is going in to sustainable means and plans to extend the sustainable production of energy and its supporting infrastructure, such as car charging points. Green energy is being heavily subsidised and feed in tarrifs are doing their part too. But the big energy producers have a lot of money to invest, and we do have a need for energy. It is always going to be an uphill struggle. We will keep fighting the fight I’m sure, and will eventually win.

  • Alex Wasyliw

    Here are links to a lot of the policies that affect the green agenda that were passed at the Lib Dem conference:

    A Sustainable Future for Aviation
    http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs/conference/2012-Autumn/F11.pdf
    International Cooperation on the Environment
    http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs/conference/2012-Autumn/F14.pdf
    Good Food Shouldn’t Cost the Earth
    http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs/conference/2012-Autumn/F15.pdf
    Developing a Future – Policies for Science and Research
    http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs/conference/2012-Autumn/F21.pdf
    Generating Growth and Jobs in a Time of Austerity
    http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs/conference/2012-Autumn/F23.pdf
    Sustainable Prosperity and Jobs Policy Paper
    http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs/conference/2012-Autumn/F25.pdf

  • collette mather

    Great news and well done,but can we trust the LibDems to keep their word,their past promises have all been broken !

  • Alex Wasyliw
  • Terry

    The Lib Dems don’t seem to hold much power and are easily swayed by the Tories. Nick Clegg cannot be trusted eg Tuition Fees. George can be trusted even less. He likes to slip things in the back door. We could have another Forestry situation where you think it has gone away only to be slipped back in. Continuous pressure until changes in writing is the only way forward.

  • John Myers

    But Ed Davey must have known that as soon as the conference was finished he was going to announce the building of new gas-fired power stations and that we won’t be able to meet the 2030 target!

  • Bill

    This is absolute nonsense. No political party has yet signed up to a planned energy policy of any sort. The truth is as follows; We are as a nation being taxed out existence on our energy usage to feed the aspirations of the so called climate change lobby.Consider the reality To replace the power output of one small coal powered generator will take 1000 wind.mills.The same bunch of greenies and nimbys will then be urging people to protest against these and put them in someone elses back yard. In addition this replacement will only operate for a small percentage of the 24/7 requirements as they will be becalmed or shut down due to high winds speeds for a good part of their operating lives, apart from the reliability problems with the gear boxes. So while you lot are cqampaignng for this the country will shut down because the lights will do out and the few earning busimnesses tha we have will go bust. These arguments only hold water in a nation that is short of engineering education to a frightening degree. |I would like to make sensible arrangements to keep us powered first then worry about how we can make it greener. If you want to really make a difference then boycott goods and services from India and China( the really large carbon generators).

  • sven radio

    keep at Osbourne’s throat he won’t go away and neither should we

  • Phil Whting

    Yes, well done on this, and yes, we should put pressure on George Osbourne as well. I’ll be waiting for the email. Phil W

  • sven radio

    join Greenpeace and get your facts right

  • william.methven@gmail.com

    What drives climate change is the demand for “economic growth”. What drives the need for economic growth? The banking system needs economic growth to repay our colosal debts created by the banks.
    Reform the banking system & you will go a long way to mitigating climate change. Campaign for banking reform!

  • Franky

    I agree with Penny, we must do the same with the other political parties. Strong lobbying of the Tory party at their conference would be the ideal next step. Failing that – or as well as, we could directly lobby George Osbourne with an even bigger petition maybe?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000752012615 Tony Brown

    Inability to accept the mystic experience is more than an intellectual handicap. Lack of awareness of the basic unity of
    organism and environment is a serious and dangerous hallucination. For in a civilization equipped with immense
    technological power, the sense of alienation between man and nature leads to the use of technology in a hostile spirit—to
    the “conquest” of nature instead of intelligent co-operation with nature. Alan Watts, Psychedelics and Religious Experience

  • seanthegreensheep

    I think Penny is right, we should tackle Osborne’s attitude (& his lot) & keep them on the right tracks ‘the UK is a responsible country that should lead by example’. The Toryies are probably wanting to dither on GHG emissions targets because it will involve unpopular business taxes & rather than do any kind of decent job they would prefer always to benefit from voter popularity. It is soO wrong that the Lib-Dems are being judged by their zero Uni fees promise… Let’s face it! Since when were any of the other parties ever with a squeaky clean record when it comes to promising voters anything… In fact Lib-Dems have made few in comparison & will learn a great deal from this joint governing adventure.

  • buttington

    My house faces south so, if I could afford it I would fit solar panels tomorrow. That’s the way the government should be going. To answer a previous post, if I had to choose between “the country being covered by windmills” or nuclear power stations, it would be windmills every time! The way we are going at the moment, what with new nuclear power stations, nuclear waste and accidents, the whole world will soon be a no-go area
    More power to 38 degrees!

  • Ecobev

    Huge congratulations to everyone involved!! Please keep up the pressure – nothing is more important than the health of our planet’s ecosystems – we cannot survive on a contaminated Earth.

  • http://toftsnummulite.blogspot.co.uk/ ToftsNummulite

    I’m concerned that “electricity without carbon” is going to mean nuclear power. That’ll be disastrous – can we all be clear that we want renewable, sustainable energy? Nuclear power is not only dangerous, but also completely unsustainable, because we don’t have a way to deal with the waste.

  • Alan Pleydell

    One obvious area for future work, I think, is lobbying the BBC, its new DG and all other media, on the systematic suppression of public comment on the causal links between demontrable, indeed demonstrated, human-induced increasingly rapid, indeed runaway, climate change (Arctic summer ice just about gone) and our daily weather. It includes hugely materially, environmentally and humanly costly floods, heatwaves, drought and storm damage. We have more and more extreme and freak weather, more and more frequently, as in the last few days, so it becomes increasingly treated as normal, especially over the last several years. But there is an obvious conspiracy of silence about it all, except for licensed lovely nice chaps like David Attenborough who, kept in that role, can be more or less safely ignored the rest of the time. I think this is because the Met Office, BBC, etc. are a under a self-imposed political gag masquerading as the proper imperative of political impartiality. But the overwhelming consensus of the science, and indeed our daily experience, is indeed impartial. These are not ‘acts of God’, they are the cumulative acts of us. This biosphere of ours, on which we have major, known and systematic impacts, is our only possible habitat and there’s nowhere else to go. Yet whole political parties and their leaderships across the world, the ones who govern us, continually sideline it as if this were merely a matter of optional political choice and opinion and not hard fact – a mere matter of taste. It might be factually true that they have the open choice to continue burying their heads in the sand, but not morally true. And it’s not even any longer just about ‘our grandchildren’ – another wonderful way of keeping reality at bay. The unfolding consequences really are upon us, here and now, yet the enormity of it all is just too big to think about so better pretend it’s not there; otherwise we’ll be scared out of our wits the whole time – not good politics or TV – don’t scare the children – the systematic attitudinal consequence in public fora of a systematically infantilised citizenry. NO, of course, not citizenry – loyal subjects – no actual constitutional right to survival at all. As the great northern wit Marriot Edgar, source of Albert and the Lion, etc., put it. ‘And it’s due to that there Magna Charter, As were signed by the barons of old, That in England today we can do what we like, So long as we do what we’re told!’

  • Jamie

    “Conference, the Liberal Democrats are not for turning.”

    Perhaps we should remind the LibDems, including Ed Davey, that their policy on nuclear is no new nuclear build.

  • seanthegreensheep

    Bill… Your point about green technology not being able to supply the nation with enough power alone is very real (for the time being at least). It may not be a popular comment to make but we need nuclear power to prevent real heartache & misery i.e., the misery to millions due to short energy supplies without nuclear energy. New nuclear fusion technology will probably be another alternative discussed in around 10 years time but whatever energy we use & whatever technology we look at, it is green technology innovation that could realistically lift any failing economy right off the floor… Unfortunately the current economy is in fact hampering most of the green industry & everything else related.

  • Sunlover

    Suppose a company wanted to build a solar energy farm on the south coast. PV panels would be sufficiently high to allow sheep to graze on the grass and wild flowers below them. The site would not be visually intrusive and would have paths for walking and cycling across it. It could supply power for 14,000 homes. If you like the idea, please sign the petition http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/solar-energy-farm-near-fareham and get the council to give planning permission.

    Sadal, do you actually know anyone who decided to have children just because they would get paid to do it? And exactly how unreliable are the tides? The wind might not blow around you personally all day, but it surely blows somewhere, and with the grid connecting the country, that makes it a reliable energy source. Over the year, my house generates more electricity from sunshine than it consumes. Every hour, 24/7, the sun sends us more energy that the entire planet consumes in a year! And in 100 or 200 years, when we have wasted all the coal, gas, oil and uranium in order to power millions of air conditioners, it will still be there.

    Doug Sinnott, burning tropical forests releases back into the atmosphere carbon that was already there only a few decades before anyway, so it’s a minor emission problem compared with the release of carbon from fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) which have been buried for millions of years. Also, China may be building coal power stations, but it is also spending serious money on solar. By developing renewable technologies that we can sell to China, India and Africa we in Britain can help them to a sustainable future as well as growing our own economy.

  • http://twitter.com/Choppersangel Debs

    The worry now is not whether Lib Dems are going to be realistic about Climate Change, but whether the very low support they have in general means their policies simply don’t count for much. This is a ‘people’ issue, it affects everyone, not just those open to accepting it on their agenda. Finding ways to persuade all parties, all members and their supporters to understand this is not a party issue at all, but universally imperative seems to be the necessity now.

  • seanthegreensheep

    I have some good news though lol… at least the UK has the North sea beds which are perfect for carbon-sequestration. £billions will be made just for the capacity to store carbon this way… but the bad news will probably be offset by another crazy bank bailout in the future. Good luck to us all.

  • Mel

    This is a great start. I absolutely think we should take the fight to Osborne and his cronies directly, it’s time they started feeling real political heat on this!

  • seanthegreensheep

    Yeah! The bigger problem with losing millions of hectares of rain forests isn’t the exhaust from it burning to the ground, it’s the loss of carbon sink, the oxygen it once produced but more importantly the untold number of un-discovered wild-species (flora & fauna) which won’t ever be around again. Humanity has learned a lot from nature that has given us solutions to many complex problems (particularly as medicinal innovation or even natural building products etc.). We were all born out of nature’s font & wouldn’t exist otherwise. Another reason humanity should stop thinking it’s above nature itself. We compare our deluded intelligence to that of all other living things on this Earth but even bacterial life-forms have a better chance at survival than we ever will.

  • Annette

    Yes I be blieve the pressure should be kept up on George Osborne not to wreck Climate Change Initiatives- he’ll cut anything if he thinks it’ll bring more money into the coffers. Keep up the good work.

  • Ken Byron

    The Labour Party, especially Ed Balls, are worryingly silent on green issues: important I think to put pressure on them to come out strongly on this and other green issues. To do so would have considerable political advantages for them and would isolate the climate change denying section of the Tory Party, who won’t change but can be defeated.

  • Alan

    I agree with William about the Banks. However we also need to fight to bring about the Nationalization of all the essential commodities Electricity, Gas & Water then all the Millions that are paid to Share Holders & Managers Bonuses can be put to work to bring about a Green solution so much sooner

  • Tom

    I think a huge Pressure should be put on George Osbourne as well as the Conservatives. They need to learn more about Nature and how it works rather than making money.

  • TBombadil

    We need to present similar petitions to both the Labour Party and Conservative Party Conferences.
    There is an interesting article in the Guardian today asking why Labour isn’t making more fuss in view of Osborne’s attempt to renege on Cameron’s pre-election commitment to a green agenda.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/28/labour-green-issues-opposition
    If we can get Lib Dems, Labour and the progressive wing of the Conservatives on board we can isolate the anti-environmetal wing of the Conservatives.To achieve that we need to petition all three Party Conferences.

  • Mary

    What the LibDems say or do is irrelevant I am afraid to say. They and Clegg are a buisted flush.

  • Mary

    Even a ‘busted’ flush!

  • seanthegreensheep

    I have read some brilliant comments but there are some made which are not helpful to anyone at all..
    .Doug Sinnot:

    “Let’s cover Britian with ugly,massively
    inefficient,windmills,and all you sandal wearing veggies will all be happy!…
    Climate change could be a natural phenomenon anyway,and whatever these Lib Dems
    saddos decide will make no difference,and any proposals made,because of the
    impact on already high fuel bills,will not happen,apart from a bit of tinkering
    around the edges.

    Even if we completely eliminated carbon dioxide
    emissions tomorrow,China and India produce as much in a week,as we turn out in
    a year…”
    Science opinion & even the cynical ‘die-hards’ in this great climate change debate now agree that climate change we are threatened with today is mostly caused by human activity i.e., Green-House-Gas emissions (GHGs which is not JUST about carbon dioxides it includes nitrous oxides, methane & CFCs etc. etc…). Lib-Dems will make a difference as any other government would in a coalition government (even the slightest influence is critical). Fuel bills can be reduced by using alternative heating methods e.g., biomass boilers, solar energy etc… and dirty fuel like fossil, gas & coal can be expected to be decreased over time. It is also childish to assume we are all hyped up hippies for concerning ourselves with matters like climate change & pathetic to assume China & India will play no future role in clean technology at all. Admittedly they will be doing what we once did to become developed countries but the developed world (assuming the economy allows) can have a big influence on their future as well as our own in doing so.

    Saddel:

    “I did not sign the petition . I believe
    that Britains contribution to world polution is so small after Thatcher closed
    down our industry to be of little concern…”
    What is this above comment all about? It’s a great shame people cannot be bothered to educate themselves on this subject at all in favour of filling other people’s heads with 100% excrement. If you only knew how complex & really delicate this issue is to humanity’s existence, you would not have made such a crank-pot statement such as this. Personally I disrespect those that have no respect for life at all & you are obviously none the wiser as to how much exactly you yourself are even contributing in this dilemma. If 70 million let alone 7 billion people had the same attitude as you, we would all definitely have one foot in the grave before we even tried to make a difference..

  • http://twitter.com/andree_frieze Andree Frieze

    We definitely need to keep the pressure up on George Osborne, he really needs to shown that investment in renewable energy can have an impact on reducing the amount of CO2 that’s released into the air. George Monbiot wrote about it in the Guardian today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/sep/28/shale-gas-fracking-uk-carbon-energy). Also, maybe you should consider joining forces with Greenpeace who are campaigning hard to get the Arctic declared a global sanctuary to stop oil driling there and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

  • Rowland Sheard

    The pressure we should put on is for the government to put much more money into flood protection. This is guaranteed to protect us against climate change.

    Zero carbon for electricity by 2030 is wholly unrealistic and even if it were possible would only work if the major countries of the world followed us. Look around and others are not following.

  • Rowland Sheard

    These comments may not be ‘helpful’ but unfortunately they are realistic!

  • Marjorie

    I agree the L Ds are the softer target. We need to accept now that Shale Gas extractions are a threat to reduced carbon emissions and the Tories are weakening towards its extraction over Britain. They are already reducing subsidies for green energy creation. bad news for all as it is yet another fossil fuel, but it is backed by the anti green lobby in the Tory ranks

  • Ley Holloway

    Well done everyone who got wet for the cause, hopefully it will add strength to the message.

  • Pattie

    I was lucky to catch a very informative tv programme which came on about 1.30 am after the Andrew Neil ‘This Week’ show, about the snow melt in the arctic. Why was this programme on so late? Very few people would have been up that late to view it. This programme should have be going out at prime time to achieve max. viewing figures. Climate change is the most important challenge to our standard of living on this planet than any growth achieved in the economy. The arctic snow is melting at a much faster rate than the scientists expected. The seas are warming, the jet stream is changing course, and everything that the Stern report predicted is coming to pass. Our climate will become much wetter, America and the Med. will become much drier.
    We are already seeing the effects of this with failed harvest in America and Russia, apple crops wiped out here, fewer bees to pollinate… etc.
    The Stern report warned the world that we were at the tipping point regarding addressing these problem. Having ignored these warnings for …how many years?? is it now too late. Populations around the world are still growing exponentially. Any reduction in green house gasses will be wiped out by population growth. How could we have ignored the Stern report, when the effects of climate change will destroy this earth. Not in my life time I suspect many are saying, but is this the legacy we want to leave our childen??

  • seanthegreensheep

    There are other things we could pressurize the government to do like to improve public transport like bus & rail services… The latter needs something done about the insane rate of rail fare increases and the bus services are running chaotic or not at all in places. At least these things would encourage people to use public services & not deter them from using these services. Our emissions are increasing not decreasing & poor air quality (also from a whole heap of other things like incineration) will cause further massive financial pressure to the NHS services (through respiratory illness including asthmatic problems to children). Sea defences are an issue but so too are methane emissions from animal livestock, coal mining & landfill sites. Anaerobic digestion & other means to utilize methane as an energy source is another good way at not only reducing emissions but to produce our energy too (METHANE IS 21 TIMES WORST THAN CO2).
    THE LIST IS ENDLESS BUT ALL IN ALL WORTH PERUSING .. Like offering huge incentives to get people to invest in hybrid cars… improving freight transport systems etc etc

  • seanthegreensheep

    It is sad humanity is real slack at making change even when it knows of serious danger approaching… like as in all the science opinion echoing warnings what fossil fuel dependence would ultimately mean to the world (in the 1970s)… however I suspect just as it fell on deaf ears then because it was big business, profits to the motor industry, that the economic consideration will do today… like for the moment. Unfortunately no one in today’s generation will be getting away with anything. We will be lucky to keep crops going, to keep our homes, arable lands out of flash-flooding drought situations… Food & water (& of course oxygen) are the by end & end all concerning our own survival.

  • Gwen

    Yes, keep up the pressure on the Tories. And lobby for the UK to support Ecuador’s proposal to leave a $2.7bn oil reserve in the ground, instead of allowing the Amazon to be exploited.

  • Ian – Oxford

    We have a huge and heavy responsibility to our children’s and grandchildren’s generations to mitigate what will, quite probably, be the awesome social effects of climate change. This must remain our no. 1 priority and the political party that looks like acting will get my vote. Keep calm and press on.

  • stephen

    Well done indeed. On nuclear power I heard recently that thorium can be used rather than uranium and that it does not have the same dangers.I am not a scientist. Is this true? should we be exploiting it?

    Stephen

  • Shellty Faisey

    Well done, good work everyone. I think that hybrid or electric vehicles would make a huge difference to fuel-charged ones. I would vote for more research to go into making that possible in the future.

  • Heather Smith

    Keep at Osborne about one of the most pressing issues of our time.

  • Heather Smith

    Keep at Osborne about one of the most pressing issues of our time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jon.fuller.3152 Jon Fuller

    The campaign group ‘This Is Ecocide’ ( http://www.thisisecocide.com/) arranged a mock trial. A summary of the trial and the verdict delivered by an impartial jury is available online. Perhaps we should put George ‘on trial’, by listing the damage he will inflict if he succeeds in implementing his polices, and put this before a jury made up of members of the public. If ‘convicted’ we should publicse the position that people find his behaviour unacceptable.

  • seanthegreensheep

    I agree the points made outside of the “quotations marks” aren’t bad at all

  • Roger Broadbent

    George Osborne clearly is not a supporter of the Green Agenda yet and probably will only become so if carried shouting and screaming to sgn up to it. He therefore has to be the next legitimate target of the campaign.Was it not his boss who used to have a little windmill on top of his shed to dupe environmentalists to vote Tory and does that ridiculous party have a tree as its logo ? Whatever happened to their blue ?green policy ?

  • DKS

    Keep up the good work – it’s really important that we keep at the government to live up to its green targets

  • Verity

    Thank you all. Could we also suggest to all of the parties that another way of creating new jobs would be to build the flood defences which will be needed throughout the country as the full effects of climate change take hold.

  • Adam

    Ed Davey his just announced that 20 new gas power stations (20Gw) will be built to provide power for the next 25 years. gas is not green, it is not renewable and it will not in any way reduce our carbon emissions to the levels required by the Climate Change Act. North Sea Gas has long since peaked and we will be dependent on our gas from Norway and of more concern, Russia, until there supplies too peak, when they will have us over a barrel. So much for cheap energy. Either that and/or Shale Gas, which means fracking which has been demonstrated to cause earthquakes and questions remain about its effects on the water table and not least the true economic cost (e.g. the $billions of subsidies from the US Govt to US shale Gas companies). Davey has confirmed the dash for gas and is putting our necks in the noose of dependency on carbon emitting energy at the mercy of foreign powers.

    This is not a victory

    This is a disaster

    38 Degrees is a great movement – but we need to keep the pressure up on Davey. This is a long war, this was but a skirmish

  • Saz

    I have heard that the Arctic Ice will have all gone in ten years time. This will make the sea levels rise. How many houses will this flood permanently in UK? What will that do to the economy? I think the government should go back to promoting solar power. It is not unsightly as it is very low lying on farms. It doesn’t make a noise. It’s very clean.

  • anna frankel

    many thanks to david & 38 degree members for organising & delivering the petition

  • rolf

    But, at a time of austerity when household budgets are being hard pressed, opting for the most expensive sources of electricity is not just a hard sell but a no brainer.

  • chapter24

    Arctic ice floats on water and melting it will not raise the sea level. However rapid warming of the Artcic area as a whole will likely speed up melting of the Greenland icecap. Because it’s on land, melting it will raise sea levels. Until recently scientists thought that the Greenland icecap would melt slowly and there would be many decades before it collapsed. Now it seems possible that melting will happen much faster. Watch out London!

    The ‘economy’, meaning our system of money, is already effectively dead. It’s going to take a lot of getting used to, but people have to think about a different future which does not involve ever greater extraction of the earth’s resources. Solar power is a generally good idea, but will require a lot of the earth’s resources to build out and maintain, and even then will only cover part of our current power consumption. Despite a lot of solar radiation hitting the surface of the earth, the portion which can realistically be captured and concentrated by man for his own use will be rather small in practice.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey Andrew Turvey

    Sorry to be picky, but the motion didn’t exactly call for “carbon free” – i.e. zero carbon – electricity. It called for electricity of less than 100 gCO2/kWh compared to the current 550 gCO2/kWh.

    I hate to point out the glaringly obvious, but the carbon cycle processes huge volumes of carbon all the time, including every time we breath in and out. The problem is that at the moment the amount of carbon we are adding to the atmosphere appears to be more than the environment can cope with, without any significant consequences. That doesn’t mean “zero” carbon is a meaningful target – somewhere there is a sustainable level of carbon emissions that would be ok. That level may be significantly lower than where we are today but it patently isn’t zero.

    What’s entirely unclear to me is what this level is and how this equates to the carbon intensity of electricity production (assuming, as we should, that electricity consumption continues to rise significantly). There seems to be very little scientific basis to this discussion.

    Secondly, this reduction seems to be largely achievable by changing the mix of energy production, in particular towards renewables. This will have other impacts, in particular for the cost of energy and energy security. It does seem quite bizarre for the lib dems to have passed this motion without these issues to have been assessed at the same time.

  • chapter24

    What do you mean by ‘expensive’? Today’s money is basically worthless, as we wait for the destruction of the world’s currencies. True cost is the damage we are doing to our planet, which you might have noticed is the only one around that can support us. That’s the cost we will care about in 10, 20, 30 years, and our children will spend their (much shorter) lives regretting. Marginal reductions in spending power today are such a small loss set against the destruction of the living planet that I can only wonder at our collective denial of what we are doing. However, reality does not negotiate and in a relatively short while we will either change or be changed.

  • Alex

    To me, it’s not just the carbon-neutral affair. One day the oil will run out and the more dependant we are on that black gold, the worse it’ll be when it runs out. This isn’t just about a greener Britain. It’s also about making sure that inevitable transition from an oil-reliant to a non-oil reliant nation is as painless as possible.

  • Malc Cowle

    Winning the Lib-Dem Conference is easy. They need to retain some street cred after letting their own activists and the British public down. We can’t celebrate until the Tories face up to reality.

  • Malc Cowle

    I once worked as a design draughtsman in this industry. You are kidding yourself. Nuclear power is to the future of humanity what DDT and Agent Orange is to plant life.
    Nuclear power plants can be fitted into a submarine. If they are so good you could apply to have one in your village.
    Just keep it out of my backyard.

  • seanthegreensheep

    I think you are missing my point… which is millions of people just like you would only start crying if you had to go without electricity for months on end, which would be the case if we removed nuclear power out of the equation right now. Believe it or not many humans would die of cold in winter (particularly the aged etc). I am not kidding myself or anyone with this statement. I don’t think you realise how much we actually depend on nuclear power until we set up an appropriate alternative. I didn’t invent nuclear technology & neither did I introduce fossil fuels into our life BUT we have to think about maintaining the billions of human life we have now NOT CULL humanity or make everyone’s life so miserable in the meantime. Population control YES definitely but not close down all nuclear power plants until we are ready. You mighr have alternative energy but not all our hospitals do nor countless other services that depend on it right now. If you think society breaking down is good then you need an electric chair my friend.

  • Katherine Law

    Absolutely put pressure on Osborne..didn’t they pledge to run the greenest government ever? I don’t agree with nuclear power. Apart from the obvious safety issues, they take years – and a lot of carbon- to build. Think how many solar panels could be installed in that time! Or other renewables. So pressure on the government for more of those, especially ‘rooves for rent’ type schemes where communities can have real ‘ownership’ of solar energy schemes. But the real elephant in the room as another person mentioned is the melting ice caps and the rush for oil in the arctic so I’d say a good campaign would be to insist on this government being strong on those who keep attempting to drill for oil in the arctic. Or does the greenest government want to be remembered for aiding the destruction of the most fragile ecosystem on earth? Talk about Age of Stupid. Pete Postlethwaite must be turning in his grave!

  • Phil

    Osborne needs to stimulate demand for products and services generated within the UK not increased demand for imports. By aligning economic policy with business policy real progress could be made. At the moment most wind or photovoltaic generation uses imported equipment and when large wind farms can cost hundreds of millions of pounds that resource is lost. How you get this accepted and put into practice is the problem as most of the corporate media deny man-made global warming and the population are more interested in iphones and celebrities is the difficulty. But try we must.

  • Arthur

    It is not just climate change that needs action to be taken,but also pollution in the oceans of this planet.It was recently reported by scientists that there was now twice as much plastic in the oceans as there is plankton. This will have a devastating effect on the food chain.Fish have been caught where large amounts of plastic have been found in their stomachs.This will of course kill them and will have knock on effects for humans.

  • Rosalind Lund

    Good so far, but we must keep going with tackling the Conservatives – green technology must be recognised as an important we can help ourselves out of the recession.

  • Richard

    We now need to put the pressure on Ed Miliband and Labour as part of building a progressive coalition on climate change action. Certainly tackle the Tories too, but they are much lesss likely to react the same way. Buiilding a broad political resistance to Osbourne’s wrecking plans is really the way forward.

  • David

    This is the single biggest issue facing all of us right now. Unless we tackle climate change it doesn’t matter what economic policy, immigration policy, education policy etc. say – we won’t have a planet left to live on!

  • C P

    We could tackle lots of things at once with the political will:-
    If we allowed people to build limed straw houses (even doing it themselves) they could have cheap almost instant housing which has almost no bad effect on the environment due to building materials, can mostly be sourced locally and is brilliantly insulated. There’d be very little need for mortgages. People could afford to work less hours and share out the jobs that existed because their housing costs would be minimal etc..
    That is probably why it will never happen. The vested interests have nothing to gain and much to lose from it. We wouldn’t all be pitiful wage slaves grateful and desperate for the jobs that make Tories rich (we make their profit). We wouldn’t need the banks so much. We wouldn’t need the horrendously polluting building trade because we wouldn’t all be in huge debt with mortgages and artificially high housing costs. The supply could quickly meet the demand.
    The argument that you can’t just spoil the countryside with straw housing wouldn’t stand incidentally because straw housing needs renewing every ten years. If the first house didn’t work out then it wouldn’t be a problem because they aren’t permanent structures. They are throwaway structures without the usual environmental consequences of our throwaway culture. The materials are not pollutants and will just deteriorate naturally and harmlessly. Besides that there are thousands and possibly millions of people who require affordable, decent housing with low heating costs. Here is a solution. It’s wrong to withhold it.

  • KateL

    Those gas power stations are needed to provide the backup power and security of energy supply when the wind isn’t blowing. The more turbines that are erected, the more power stations will be needed to maintain electricity supplies 24/7, especially during the usual winter anticyclones. Perhaps we could all look at ways to use less energy?

  • Simone Wilkins

    For our children’s sake please keep the pressure up on this issue

  • jimi o

    Sorry off topic, but:I don’t suppose you guys (38 Degreesand friends) are backing the implementation of an effective supermarket regulator are you? I feel very strongly, that we should, and think it would be a step in the right direction. My source is Actionaid, they are aiming at it from an international angle, but I really do believe, as with the tremdous amount of detail of abuse against meat farmers and suppliers, and of course with the price fixing of milk not so long ago, that this lucrative industry ( I used to work at ‘a’ site, not long ago and on a quiet day, they would rake in >100k) needs taming. This is my oppinion. I would hope that you would agree.

  • jimi o

    I think the general rule should be that we should use them when we have
    to. On the topic of Lib dems, I received a questionairre asking which
    type of ‘power’ I favoured from Nick Clegg’s office. This
    questionairre, in my oppinion was very flawed I thought and did not
    return it for what I thought was a misunderstadiung of the issue. after
    all in a HUGE city, you do not place Wind farms or Nuclear. And in a
    Natural reserve you do not implement Hydroelectric Dams. If we have the
    right favourable conditions, then we need to use them. I can
    understand the opposition to Nuclear, but if it is ‘well’ maintained
    (unlike the recent Japanese reactor), and VERY effectively scrutinised
    it should ‘be fine’. Implementing the right power should be common
    sense, spead it out where it can be most efficient… I agree that there should be a limit though.

    My point being generally put up few and only under particular Critera.

  • http://www.optical-minefield.co.uk/ Adam

    I will admit that the majority of Liberal Democrat party members are switched on about the evident danger of climate change, but that still hasn’t seemed to have translated into decisive action on the issue. So whereabouts is the process failing?
    As the Labour MP, Alan Whitehead tweeted – “Wed: Lib Dems agree decarb of energy by 2030. Fri: Ed Davey announces 20 new gas fired power stations. Sat: head hurts.”

  • Badger22

    Thanks very much for all your hard work and dedication. We need to make sure that politicians represent us and follow up with what they say they will do when we elect them. After the last election its obvious The Lib Dems don’t do this. Well done and keep up the pressure.
    If politicians and people as a whole put enough effort into solving the energy crisis as they do when they go to War the issue would soon get resolved.
    It needs a massive effort now.

  • cshaws

    A huge number of environmental problems could be solved worldwide if we change our attitude towards one simple plant. It will provide fuel, fibre, food very cheaply without the need for pesticides or agro chemicals, it produces the best paper in the world, far superior to wood pulp and way more environmentally friendly. It would provide a massive carbon sink if grown in sufficient quantity …. I could go on but it maybe better to read this …. http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/chapter-two/ . Also, new research has confirmed findings from 1974 (suppressed by the US) that this plant can destroy cancer cells effectively and painlessly, but the west still maintains it has no value as a drug while, at the same time allowing a large pharmaceutical company to supply in in extract form at huge profit with massive tax breaks. If our farmers were allowed to grow it without the current ridiculous restraints and the government encouraged investment in processing plants up to 100,000 jobs could be created and a massive amount of carbon saved.

  • http://actionagainstapathy.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/im-angry-about-the-disappearing-arctic-why-arent-you/ I’m angry about the disappearing Arctic, why aren’t you? « Andree Frieze’s Blog

    [...] up on Facebook, talk to your friends, sign Avaaz’s petitions on climate initiatives, support 38 Degrees environmental campaigns and sign the e-petition demanding this government oppose drilling in the [...]

  • Em

    Improve new building designs by incorporating water tanks to collect water for toilet use hopefully this would rdeuce water bills and usage! Design water tanks that could be utilised by existing buildings to do the same job and for the same purpose? Climate change solutions need to be people friendly = ‘wind farms’ create an awful lot of controversy and distress!

  • http://www.libdemvoice.org/are-you-a-liberal-democrat-conference-rep-who-went-to-brighton-30468.html Are you a Liberal Democrat conference rep who went to Brighton?

    [...] PS: Do you think 38 Degrees should continue to make sure George Osborne doesn’t wreck climate targets? What else could we be doing together to tackle climate change? You can share your thoughts and feedback with other 38 Degrees members in the comments section here: http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2012/09/25/lib-dems-vote-for-tougher-climate-action/ [...]

  • http://markpack.chocolate.markpack.vc.catn.com/35341/are-you-a-liberal-democrat-conference-rep-who-went-to-brighton/ Are you a Liberal Democrat conference rep who went to Brighton? | Mark Pack

    [...] PS: Do you think 38 Degrees should continue to make sure George Osborne doesn’t wreck climate targets? What else could we be doing together to tackle climate change? You can share your thoughts and feedback with other 38 Degrees members in the comments section here: http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2012/09/25/lib-dems-vote-for-tougher-climate-action/ [...]

  • Grahame Sturges

    We need to make sure that plans to meet Carbon Targets are not predicated on the back of the proliferation of Nuclear Power, for which mankind still has no credible long term safety strategy either for power stations themselves, nor for nuclear waste.

  • http://forest-ramblings.blogspot.co.uk/ Alec Dauncey

    I’m an active Liberal Democrat and was at the Conference.
    David Babbs asks whether 38 Degrees should continue with this campaign.
    Absolutely!
    This is a Coalition, Ed Davey will need all the support he can get to win the argument.

  • zl

    The future is in hemp: hemp biofuel/ hempcrete homes/ hemp moulds can be as intricate as any synthetic petrochemical case eg. mobile phone covers/ medicines/ textiles. Educate yourself: begin via youtube. Imagine if the pacific garbage patch wasn’t toxic, but fully biodegradable for the planton & creatures who suffer so cruelly as a result of our unforgivably superstitious, stubborn cowardice to demand fair competition, with due laurels to Mother Nature. We are in the Dark Ages. Which is the more “Dark Arty” – scientists in labs fiddling with the very fabric of space & time, for weapons & petrochemical consumerbles with dreadful waste-products (for short-sighted wealth), or, feeling strangely biblical/epic bcuz living mercy has been revealed to us, and all our courage then required. Or shall we just grouse indefinitely…?

  • zl

    Dear Arthur (King Arthur ?), I must write quik~quik. i replied ‘cuz u mentioned poor plankton. I hope what i’ve posted on the 38% page brings u some hope. zl

  • anna

    ZeroCarbonBritain2030 is the clearest, most sensible vision for meeting our climate targets. Be cool if we at 38 degrees could support their campaign x

  • Pete Brimson

    Wind, tidal and solar should all be increased, but they cannot provide all of our power. In any case, they suffer from intermittancy i.e they need 24 hour back up. The only reliable non CO2 making of providing this back up is nuclear energy. There is a real problem with public understanding of nuclear, Most people regard nuclear as dangerous, Chernobyl type reactors, but fail to realise that modern nuclear has moved on in terms of safety and efficiency. Third generation reactors, for example, have automatic shut down and passive safety systems that will automatically cool the reactor core in the crucial 7 days after shutdown. Fast breeder reactors have a great deal to offer. Early designs had a mixed track record, but the EBR 2 design, perfected over 10 years to 1993 at Argonne Labs USA, demonstrated many advantages. These included: 1. Inherent safety (if the fuel pins overheat, they expand, the density drops and the fission reactions cease) 2. Ability to utilise existing piles of nuclear waste as fuel, including plutonium and higher actinides. 3. Ability to breed plutonium for fuel. 4. Efficiency – conversion of most of the fuel into energy vs conversion of only 1% in existing thermal reactors. 5. On site fuel reprocessing thereby reducing any proliferation risk. There are other promising technologies in development e.g. thorium reactors.
    My hope (for what its worth) is that public understanding of modern nuclear can be greatly increased in future.
    For a good intro to the EBR2 fast reactor, see the relevant chapter in “Prescription for the Planet” by Tom Blees. This book outlines a number of other lesser known green technologies as well. Worth a read.

  • http://www.facebook.com/peter.t.c.reisdorf Peter Reisdorf
  • Dave

    Well done guys. This is a great first step. The major step will of course be to get either Labour or the Conservatives to agree the importance of this and make it a major campaigning issue. Tough! Given that in hard economic times, the great majority of voters struggle to see beyond what they perceive to be their empty pockets, realising the value and potential of the green economy is vital for a nation that only has a few avenues out of economic difficulties. The political party that promotes this, might just get elected/re-elected.

  • zl

    spot on.

  • http://twitter.com/IanEiloart Ian Eiloart

    I was at that conference as a party member, and I contributed to the development of the policy at an earlier conference consultation session. Grateful though we are for your support, we were always going to pass this motion. In fact, it’s unusual for a policy motion to get to conference and then fall.

    Also, at this conference, we had a consultation session on how to achieve a carbon neutral UK by 2050, which is a long standing party policy. That session will feed into a policy proposal for (probably) our spring 2013 conference, and I’m 99% certain that conference will pass the motion, the interesting debates will be on any amendments that are presented.

  • zl

    see cshaws comment above and mine (zl). Witholding holding ancient solutions is wasting precious time. Why do people so stubbornly cling to the idea that solutions must be still be invented , instead of considering that we might need to return to what was abandoned, or became outlawed.

  • Pia

    This from my sister who works for a sustainability consultancy – tallbergfoundation.org In a nut shell – incentives for energy efficiency, and energy/fuel efficient technology.

    there is no hope in global negotiations till the west shows they are prepared to walk the talk, so all else ispointless, in my opinion.

    so – fair (i.e., don’t penalise the poor/rural areas) price increase for all fossil fuels, and massive incentives for alternatives and efficiency.

    Huge investment in getting development in UK and elsewhere off carbon dioxide emission intensive everything – including agriculture, where currently no discussions on how fossil fuel dependent intensive agriculture is.

  • Simon Norton

    As well as greening our energy supply, we need to restructure our economy to reduce our energy consumption — and I don’t just mean insulating our homes.

    The first thing should be to make our transport more sustainable. Cars, planes and long distance lorries are an excellent example of the “effluent society” — where consumption actually damages people’s quality of life through noise, air pollution, danger and abstraction of patronage from local buses (which are also under threat from spending cuts). Replacing these by relatively benign walking, cycling, buses, trains and shipping
    (the last two also for freight) would massively improve people’s quality of life as well as saving carbon.

    Then we need to reduce people’s need for consumer goods whose production and distribution uses lots of energy, and replace this by increased spending on public services. This is, of course, the exact opposite of current policies which see extra consumer spending as the way to reduce unemployment caused by spending cuts.

  • Jenny Shackleford

    Well done 38 degress. Very much agree with William below. It seems there is unrelenting reference to growth. Growth within the worlds finite resources is just not possible. We need to think about how to live differently and how to begin now to build the communities we need to face the challenges ahead. Banking reform, useful education to increase problem solving ability and practical skills of young people. Any policy that is predicated on an expectation of continued growth needs to be reviewed!

  • pfcelectric

    Very simple measures could be taken by the UK Government with little regulation of the energy suppliers, An overall reduction of 30% in energy demand could be achieved easily. http://www.pfcelectric.biz – the problem is share prices are more important.

  • David

    The driver for all the environmental problems, including climate change, is overpopulation. Please see the petition on Avaaz, “To ask the government to take steps to limit the human population in the UK”

  • David

    All over the environment problems we are facing, including climate change, are driven by overpopulation. Please see the petition on Avaaz, “To ask the government to take steps to limit the human population of the UK”.

  • Matt

    It’s probably the defining issue of our time – well done everyone for this victory. Now let’s keep up the pressure!

  • Ann

    Well done 38 degrees! I just want to say, however, that I don’t think “climate change” is the right phrase to be campaigning with. Far more important is the use of fossil fuels, which are finite, create dirt and pollution and harm the air and climate when they are burnt. Governments need to invest in renewable energy sources to contain the pollution and damage that has been done by the fossil fuel extraction and burning around the world.
    This investment isn’t being done because it threatens the commercial interests of the mega-large energy companies – and that’s where the problem lies. Think about it, please. Stop using fossil fuels!