Can i have a nice hot summer please?

It's not "global warming" now, it's "climate change"....

Not mentioning it on every news bulletin, and banning F1 for a start.

What annoys me about most of this is as a nation britain is responsible for about 1.8% of carbon emissions what about the big boys producing the other 98% unless you get us china india indonesia and brazil round the table to do anything about it the amount we contribute is virtually negligible its just another way they can find to provide a form of taxation to the masses and justify it as a green tax. That said as a scientist we do have to encourage some kind of change in the future to alter things. Dont even get me started on volcanoes that produce over 70% of carbon emissions!!

And livestock, and all those vegans and vegetarians giving off gases...

Alchemist1 wrote:What annoys me about most of this is as a nation britain is responsible for about 1.8% of carbon emissions what about the big boys producing the other 98% unless you get us china india indonesia and brazil round the table to do anything about it the amount we contribute is virtually negligible its just another way they can find to provide a form of taxation to the masses and justify it as a green tax. That said as a scientist we do have to encourage some kind of change in the future to alter things. Dont even get me started on volcanoes that produce over 70% of carbon emissions!! We’re only about 0.9% of the world population, and I don’t think anybody expects the UK to solve it alone. Equally, if everybody waits for everybody else to start solving it, nowt will happen. Volcanoes: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... or-humans/ IR80 wrote:banning F1. I did check.

Alchemist1 wrote:What annoys me about most of this is as a nation britain is responsible for about 1.8% of carbon emissions what about the big boys producing the other 98% unless you get us china india indonesia and brazil round the table to do anything about it the amount we contribute is virtually negligible its just another way they can find to provide a form of taxation to the masses and justify it as a green tax. That said as a scientist we do have to encourage some kind of change in the future to alter things. Dont even get me started on volcanoes that produce over 70% of carbon emissions!! We’re only about 0.9% of the world population, and I don’t think anybody expects the UK to solve it alone. Equally, if everybody waits for everybody else to start solving it, nowt will happen. Volcanoes: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... or-humans/ IR80 wrote:banning F1. I did check.

Turn every other street light off between midnight and 5 am in villages. Stop illuminating public buildings at the same times, ban all non commercial vehicles above 1.6 litres, ban log burners, ban hot tubs, patio heaters, BBQ's etc. There is a lot that could be being done, but nobody would win an election if they suggested it, and it would make very little difference.

Some good ideas there. This is what we should have after Brexit, innovative ideas being suggested from the public rather than waiting for 'elites' to tell us what to do.

You're right about the UK "only" being responsible for a very small percentage of the planets carbon emissions and you are also right that other larger nations need to take some action, some more than others. However, the point is that EYERONE can and should do their bit.
I do have one real big gripe with Britain claiming to have done more than other nations though.

Having effectively "exported" much of our "dirty" manufacture to China and some of the Asian nations, we are trying to claim that we have cleaned up our act. However, if consuming products that are causing the biggest issues, it doesn't really matter where they have been produced, as the carbon effect will be the same and possibly worse.

Certain politicians will always put their own position above that of the wider population

I fly long haul return every month, sometimes twice, and have done for the past 12 years or so. Mainly China / Asia but also the States and south America. I conference when I can, but as I project lead I really need to be on the ground. I have no problems paying an extra tax, though like many of my colleagues who also fly often, I contribute to carbon offset schemes and conservation schemes. I would hate families who go on holiday once a year to see a price hike because of people like me flying as often as I do. A staggered taxation of frequent flyers taking into account aircraft type, miles covered etc would be pretty fair I think, with a certain number of miles exempt for those that travel only once.