Radical vision to halt climate change
THE UK could cut carbon emissions to zero in 20 years, but only if people accept a virtual end to air travel and stop using fuel-driven cars, a report claimed yesterday.
Meat would also need to disappear off many menus and an "armada" of wind turbines would be required to be built around the coast to achieve the goal, according to the new research.
Money would meanwhile be overtaken in importance by carbon credits traded by everyone using special smart cards.
The radical vision was put forward by researchers and scientists from the Centre for Alternative Technology (Cat) and was announced as details were revealed of the UK's longest protest march to call for action on climate change.
The 1000-mile trek around the UK will take in 70 towns and cities and involve an estimated 50,000 people.
The scientists from Cat set themselves the task of seeing if the UK could cut fossil fuel emissions to zero by 2027.
They claim achieving such a drastic cut in emissions is possible and may be the only way to tackle climate change.
Paul Allen, the development director of Cat, said: "What we are saying is that we need a huge programme, a bit like the US space project in the 1960s.
"When that was launched it was known to be a huge target, but the driving force to make it work was there. We think that zerocarbonbritain can do that again; it can give us a positive future."
In its report, CAT suggests people would be given their own carbon credits called Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) and carry them on the environmental equivalent of the London transport Oyster card. Each year the free allocation would decrease as the country moves towards zero carbon, with the effect that the value of the quotas will go up.
| We need a huge programme, like the US space project in the 1960s | |
|
But every time consumers use fossil fuels, say by filling their cars up with petrol, they would lose valuable credits, forcing them to choose low carbon alternatives.
The resulting market would drive environmental change, providing the economic incentive to produce green products. One major effect,
according to the authors, would be that electric, battery-operated cars would quickly overtake use of the internal combustion engine.
Households would be forced to invest in ways to make their homes energy efficient, and switch from gas to biofuels or renewable electricity.
But there would also be "negative" effects in terms of the lifestyle that people currently enjoy.
Air travel would become far too expensive unless the industry "pulls something out of the hat" and finds a green fuel.
And the diet of the country would have to change to include far more organically-grown, locally-produced vegetables, and less meat.
Tens of thousands of wind turbines would be built, mainly around the UK's shores, to provide 50% of the country's new energy needs.
The rest would come from a combination of biofuel "combined heat and power" stations, wave power, hydroelectricity and tidal schemes.
Meanwhile, walkers from around the world are preparing to embark on what organisers believe will be the UK's longest protest march to call for action on climate change.
Campaigners will set out from Northern Ireland next Saturday on a 1000-mile trek around the UK taking in 70 towns and cities, finishing at the London Stock Exchange 11 weeks later.
An estimated 50,000 people are expected to join the walkers at different points, gathering signatures for a petition calling on Gordon Brown to bring in a new law forcing companies to reveal their carbon dioxide emissions.
The event, organised by Christian Aid, will begin in Bangor, Co Down, on July 14 where the campaigners will gather at the marina and board a boat bound for Troon, Ayrshire, to begin their trek.
In another move to tackle climate change, Boeing has unveiled its new "green" 787 Dreamliner aircraft powered by Rolls-Royce engines. The 250-seat plane will fly for the first time this autumn and will go into passenger service in May 2008.
With Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines, the Dreamliner is 25% British-made.
Boeing boasts that the plane will use 20% less fuel per
passenger than similarly sized aircraft, will produce fewer carbon emissions and will have quieter take-offs and landings.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Posted by: Millie on 1:49am Mon 9 Jul 07
If these freaks come near me I will chuck lumps of tofu at them from my four-wheel drive car.
No meat, no cars, no planes - just carrots and sandals. Sounds awful.
If these freaks come near me I will chuck lumps of tofu at them from my four-wheel drive car.
No meat, no cars, no planes - just carrots and sandals. Sounds awful.
Posted by: Im not really here on 2:41am Mon 9 Jul 07
Perhaps there would be a dramatic increase in another greenhouse gas emission with all the roughage that people would be eating.
Someone better tell Tesco not to build that village - no-one will have cars to drive out to it.
Perhaps there would be a dramatic increase in another greenhouse gas emission with all the roughage that people would be eating.
Someone better tell Tesco not to build that village - no-one will have cars to drive out to it.
Posted by: Guga, Rockall on 4:25am Mon 9 Jul 07
Any government stupid enough to try and bring in these idiotic ideas would soon find themselves unelectable.
Just imagine, nobody in this country able to afford to fly, run a car, eat meat or afford heating in winter; and that would be just for starters. Meanwhile, countries like America, China and India carry on regardless, as will no doubt be the case in most European countries.
Any politician that tries this nonsense will soon be out of a job, as people have no intention of being forced back into the middle ages. Someone should tell these junk scientists to get real.
Any government stupid enough to try and bring in these idiotic ideas would soon find themselves unelectable.
Just imagine, nobody in this country able to afford to fly, run a car, eat meat or afford heating in winter; and that would be just for starters. Meanwhile, countries like America, China and India carry on regardless, as will no doubt be the case in most European countries.
Any politician that tries this nonsense will soon be out of a job, as people have no intention of being forced back into the middle ages. Someone should tell these junk scientists to get real.
Posted by: Rosemary Herrmann, TN, USA on 4:26am Mon 9 Jul 07
Please go to http://radicalrosie.
blogspot.com/
for the cure for all the excess carbon emmissiions. It's been so obvious, we may have overlooked it ! Or, is it not considered because it would kill several billion dollar companies ?
Please go to http://radicalrosie.
blogspot.com/
for the cure for all the excess carbon emmissiions. It's been so obvious, we may have overlooked it ! Or, is it not considered because it would kill several billion dollar companies ?
Posted by: Dr. Andrew Wallace PhD, Sweden on 6:43am Mon 9 Jul 07
If we carry on as we are we will have it worse than the proposals by CAT but I would say what CAT proposes is not enough. Not enough if we really wish to move over to something sustainable. We would need not only cut our carbon emissions but look at our entire socioeconomic system as it would only be a matter of time before we make all the changes ineffective if we still have economic growth. It is, however, possible to move to a sustainable socioeconomic system that does offer a good quality of life.
If we carry on as we are we will have it worse than the proposals by CAT but I would say what CAT proposes is not enough. Not enough if we really wish to move over to something sustainable. We would need not only cut our carbon emissions but look at our entire socioeconomic system as it would only be a matter of time before we make all the changes ineffective if we still have economic growth. It is, however, possible to move to a sustainable socioeconomic system that does offer a good quality of life.
Posted by: Thomas Laprade on 7:32am Mon 9 Jul 07
Dear Editor, July 8/07
Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Canada
Your readers might be interested in these websites.
Please paste these links in your browser.
http://environment.n
ewscientist.com/arti
cle.ns?id=dn11462
http://www.foxnews.c
om/story/0,2933,2881
95,00.html
http://epw.senate.go
v/public/index.cfm?F
useAction=Minority.B
logs&ContentRecord_i
d=927b9303-802a-23ad
-494b-dccb00b51a12&R
egion_id=&Issue_id=&
IsTextOnly=True
http://www.worldclim
atereport.com/
http://www.nytimes.c
om/2007/07/06/opinio
n/06fri1.html?hp
http://www.breitbart
.com/article.php?id=
070705191403.gahmdto
i&show_article=1
http://www.ctv.ca/se
rvlet/ArticleNews/st
ory/CTVNews/20070705
/greenland_dna_07070
5/20070705?hub=SciTe
ch
http://www.abc.net.a
u/westqld/stories/s1
971899.htm?backyard
Dear Editor, July 8/07
Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Canada
Your readers might be interested in these websites.
Please paste these links in your browser.
http://environment.n
ewscientist.com/arti
cle.ns?id=dn11462
http://www.foxnews.c
om/story/0,2933,2881
95,00.html
http://epw.senate.go
v/public/index.cfm?F
useAction=Minority.B
logs&ContentRecord_i
d=927b9303-802a-23ad
-494b-dccb00b51a12&R
egion_id=&Issue_id=&
IsTextOnly=True
http://www.worldclim
atereport.com/
http://www.nytimes.c
om/2007/07/06/opinio
n/06fri1.html?hp
http://www.breitbart
.com/article.php?id=
070705191403.gahmdto
i&show_article=1
http://www.ctv.ca/se
rvlet/ArticleNews/st
ory/CTVNews/20070705
/greenland_dna_07070
5/20070705?hub=SciTe
ch
http://www.abc.net.a
u/westqld/stories/s1
971899.htm?backyard
Posted by: Ed Sears, Derbyshire on 10:07am Mon 9 Jul 07
First of all, Svensmarks' experiments don't carry much weight: he proposed a theoretical mechanism for the influence of cosmic rays and solar energy on the earth's atmosphere but the sensors that monitor incoming cosmic rays don't show the fluctuations needed to produce a change in our climate. There are multiple separate lines of evidence for CO2 producing a warming effect, including laboratory measurements of the amount of infrared absorbed by individual CO2 molecules - sorry, Thomas Laprade, we are not out of the hot seat yet.
Secondly, it seems high unlikely that we will follow CAT's recommendations as a country, although I think individuals may well follow their suggestions - for instance, I don't use planes often (twice in last 10 years) and when my current car dies, I will be happy to buy an electric car for the 10 mile commute I have to work.
The main point is surely that there is substantial scientific evidence that if the entire population of the world follows a high-energy, high-CO2, high-consumption lifestyle, we will destroy the forests, fresh water supply, stable climate, ocean fish stocks, agricultural soils and other ecosystems on which we are completely dependent to survive. And in the name of what? On-tap air conditioning, patio heaters and flying in tiny mangetout from distant continents.
Prioritise. Personal lifestyle changes are a way of cutting carbon emissions that don't need politicians to agree on complicated new legislation. My view is 'Do it now.'
First of all, Svensmarks' experiments don't carry much weight: he proposed a theoretical mechanism for the influence of cosmic rays and solar energy on the earth's atmosphere but the sensors that monitor incoming cosmic rays don't show the fluctuations needed to produce a change in our climate. There are multiple separate lines of evidence for CO2 producing a warming effect, including laboratory measurements of the amount of infrared absorbed by individual CO2 molecules - sorry, Thomas Laprade, we are not out of the hot seat yet.
Secondly, it seems high unlikely that we will follow CAT's recommendations as a country, although I think individuals may well follow their suggestions - for instance, I don't use planes often (twice in last 10 years) and when my current car dies, I will be happy to buy an electric car for the 10 mile commute I have to work.
The main point is surely that there is substantial scientific evidence that if the entire population of the world follows a high-energy, high-CO2, high-consumption lifestyle, we will destroy the forests, fresh water supply, stable climate, ocean fish stocks, agricultural soils and other ecosystems on which we are completely dependent to survive. And in the name of what? On-tap air conditioning, patio heaters and flying in tiny mangetout from distant continents.
Prioritise. Personal lifestyle changes are a way of cutting carbon emissions that don't need politicians to agree on complicated new legislation. My view is 'Do it now.'
Posted by: Saving the Planet?, Alba on 12:19pm Mon 9 Jul 07
And the LESS than 2% of global warming reduction will achieve exactly what? Will the rest of the world follow our example? More hot air I suspect.
And the LESS than 2% of global warming reduction will achieve exactly what? Will the rest of the world follow our example? More hot air I suspect.
Posted by: L M, Galloway on 2:21pm Mon 9 Jul 07
There is no comfort to be found in denying the human effect on climate chage. Do you really want to sit on your upholstered rear, watching the South Sea Islands drown and Africans die of thirst, while Southern Europeans succumb to heat-stroke? At least, if we follow, as individuals, the suggestions made by CAT (while insisting that the military/industrial machine does its part) - then there is hope. If it is 'solar flares', then we can do nothing. Which do you prefer?
There is no comfort to be found in denying the human effect on climate chage. Do you really want to sit on your upholstered rear, watching the South Sea Islands drown and Africans die of thirst, while Southern Europeans succumb to heat-stroke? At least, if we follow, as individuals, the suggestions made by CAT (while insisting that the military/industrial machine does its part) - then there is hope. If it is 'solar flares', then we can do nothing. Which do you prefer?
Posted by: Charlie McCudden, Falkirk on 4:20pm Mon 9 Jul 07
Yet another think tank comes up with yet another world saving scheme!
Haven't we learned enough to know that people will not be lectured or forced or cajoled or taxed or tricked into doing any of the things that reversing climate change requires, because they don't want to be the ones making sacrifices if they can't be convinced that everyone else will join them. There are too many hypocrites and opportunists out there trying to gain personal mileage out of the whole issue for people to be convinced that they themselves can make a difference. We are all standing on the side of a very steep mountain, gravely at risk of starting an avalanche because of all the noise we're making. The contents of the avalanche have been built up by excessive human consumption over a very short period of history. I believe the only way we will quickly reverse the problem is by us, the ordinary people, getting off our backsides (forget the scientists, politicians and celebrities) and getting out there to talk to other ordinary people and convincing them that by using their collective will change just might happen. If we don't, they can pass as many laws as they like and trade as many carbon credits as they want - it won't make enough difference unless the majority of the world's peoples try much harder.
It all really begs the question - do we deserve our home on Earth or would the planet be justified in kicking us out? As things stand at this moment I know I couldn't blame her for telling us we're just not up to the job!
Yet another think tank comes up with yet another world saving scheme!
Haven't we learned enough to know that people will not be lectured or forced or cajoled or taxed or tricked into doing any of the things that reversing climate change requires, because they don't want to be the ones making sacrifices if they can't be convinced that everyone else will join them. There are too many hypocrites and opportunists out there trying to gain personal mileage out of the whole issue for people to be convinced that they themselves can make a difference. We are all standing on the side of a very steep mountain, gravely at risk of starting an avalanche because of all the noise we're making. The contents of the avalanche have been built up by excessive human consumption over a very short period of history. I believe the only way we will quickly reverse the problem is by us, the ordinary people, getting off our backsides (forget the scientists, politicians and celebrities) and getting out there to talk to other ordinary people and convincing them that by using their collective will change just might happen. If we don't, they can pass as many laws as they like and trade as many carbon credits as they want - it won't make enough difference unless the majority of the world's peoples try much harder.
It all really begs the question - do we deserve our home on Earth or would the planet be justified in kicking us out? As things stand at this moment I know I couldn't blame her for telling us we're just not up to the job!
Posted by: Irene, central California on 6:41pm Thu 12 Jul 07
I think Mr. MacDonald's plan is a little overboard, but what really impresses me is how the brilliant minds who claim to know how to fix global warming and the like are totally ignoring aerosol spraying (aka chemtrails) which is having a quicker, more devastating impact on our environment than all the cars and planes put together. Please visit www.carnicom.com to get more info on this hideous practice that our officials are ignoring.
I think Mr. MacDonald's plan is a little overboard, but what really impresses me is how the brilliant minds who claim to know how to fix global warming and the like are totally ignoring aerosol spraying (aka chemtrails) which is having a quicker, more devastating impact on our environment than all the cars and planes put together. Please visit www.carnicom.com to get more info on this hideous practice that our officials are ignoring.
Posted by: David Somervell, Edinburgh on 6:54pm Thu 12 Jul 07
So pleased to see so much sense being offered by such a well-respected, independent organisation as CAT. See their websight at http://www.zerocarbo
nbritain.com/ if you want to read the full report. All best, David
So pleased to see so much sense being offered by such a well-respected, independent organisation as CAT. See their websight at http://www.zerocarbo
nbritain.com/ if you want to read the full report. All best, David