Kyoto
 

I happen to know someone from germany, a nice chap. Anyway back at university we were talking about the environment etc. He noted that Britain didnt give a **** about the environment compared to Germany and Switzerland, and maybe a few others. Indeed when I visited those countries they were anal about the environment. The streets were clean and well they had recycling down. Not only that but they kind of look down on me when I ask what bin do I put a can in, or when I ask them where do I throw away my beer bottle (they take stuff like that and get money back)

So it is of great joy to me that we the English (or should I say the British, but the english are probably the main thing) are actually making the world a better place and are doing bloody good things compared to the old Germans and French.

Basically us and the swedish are the closest to hitting the Kyoto Target out of Europe.

Anyway heres the BBC Link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4561576.stm

Re: Kyoto
 

I think that means that the UK is just ahead at buying pollution points from less industrial countries. It's not actually all about removing pollutants...

Re: Kyoto
 

you are obsessed with wikipedia, I went to your blog (nice wedding pics btw) and you linked to wikipedia. OBSESSED! OBSESSED I TELL THEE! Hey it still means we are beating ze germans even if we have to buy that sucess its worth it.

Re: Kyoto
 

I can only speak of my own sector (housing - apparently represents 25% of all carbon emissions in the UK) but reducing carbon emissions (by increasing energy efficiency generally) has been made a reasonably high priority by the government (and thus by us). A few of the things that have happened / are happening on this front :

• We are obliged to calculate an energy efficiency rating and carbon emissions rating for every dwelling.
• We have to report annually on the energy efficiency of the above, plus actions plans on how we're going to improve this. We are also annually audited by central government on this.
• All new dwellings have to meet certain new standards (which are dramatically higher than existing stock)
• Millions of pounds have been given in grants to increase energy effiency of homes.
• From April on all new lets we have to supply incoming tenants with estimated running costs of their home, in terms of utility bills.

So yeah, I don't doubt we're trying to fiddle this as much as humanly possible, but there is also some genuine effort being made, at least in my sector.

Re: Kyoto
 

I have more links to the ALA than to Wikipedia, at least in the side link menu. Anyhow I don't advocate Wikipedia as it's shit. I also have links to the UN, did you see those? :P (oh and thanks for the compliment)

Re: Kyoto
 

My archaeology professor in undergrad generated 100% of his own electricity, he's off the grid. He uses solar panels most of the time, but sometimes he has to use a gas generator. He also has a water catchment system, and converts rain water into a drinkable form. He lives on the Big Island in Hawai'i and has quite a bit of land so he's able to do that. It's real nice.

Re: Kyoto
 

I thought this thread was going to be about anagrams :(

Re: Kyoto
 

That's hardly a bad thing. ****ING ENGLISH PEOPLE GIVING MONEY TO POORER COUNTRIES FOR NOTHING PHYSICAL IN RETURN!


Next thing you'll say they're just doing this out of self-interest and we can all have a right old laugh.

Re: Kyoto
 

is that actually the case though, or is it just conjecture on your part?

I was highly suprised though that the UK is beating Germany for example. they have alot of laws here stating that whenever you chop down a tree to build a house or whatever, you have to plant another one somewhere else.

If the UK is really beating Germany though, it's probably because of all the hot air and gas generated by the billions of damn German Government Bureaucrats and pissed off clients they have here in their poky damn offices on long, green painted corridors of shut doors with their pesky ticket machines and forms forms forms. Good God, the Bureaucracy here is f*cking awful. I'm suprised the people put up with it to be honest, they could halve the taxes if they got rid of all this crap.

Re: Kyoto
 

I believe you need an agreement probably 10 times as strong as kyoto to even start getting anywhere.

Re: Kyoto
 

Well I think if they wanted to they could probably whack off 20% in a very short space of time. At a relatively small economic cost.

Next US election could be the most important in history, probably.

Re: Kyoto
 

ive been saying that for years, did anyone listen? no :( the problem is that if you look at all those single regulations alone, most of them make perfect sense. it's the sheer amount of them that makes people insane.
As for Kyoto, i think we have higher targets than UK. With an economic growth of about 0 and most of the old industry in the east beeing shut down since 1990 we can do that bad.

Re: Kyoto
 

In October the UK asked for a revision of its National Allocation Plan. According to the pressure group the Climate Action Network, the increase asked for was equivalent to an amount saved when seven other EU countries cut their own draft plans. Beckett is rapidly losing credibility as her department caves into the Department of Trade and Industry: Friends of the Earth has suggested the UK is now on track for a 14-15 per cent cut in emissions by 2010, rather than the 20 per cent that the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs says it wants achieved. And whatever Beckett’s hopes on aviation emissions, the earliest that these could be included in the ETS is 2008. In the meantime, a continuing rise in transport emissions makes a mockery of the UK’s concern over climate change.

There are economic tools (like taxation) that could play a role in tackling climate change. The EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme, however, is not one of them.

Re: Kyoto
 

so unless we get a great new treaty that does make a difference it's better to do nothing at all?

Re: Kyoto
 

"People" as in those with the self awareness who care, or "people" in the mass of voters who don't give a shit as they are either ignorant or going to be dead anyway?

Re: Kyoto
 

Big businesses and governments do not give a ... about environment, people's health etc. All they care about is profits. America openly said that. Capital is inhuman, it is not in its nature to solve problems. Of course Kyoto is bound to fail. It is just giving some sort of bait to activists, media and poeple, keeping them busy. We should be old enough not to believe in fairy tales. It is childish to expect anything positive.

Re: Kyoto
 

They'd fall under "ignorant" for watching Fox news.

I know old people who say "we'll be dead, we don't care"

Re: Kyoto
 

Not very much, bar that I don't run a car and near always use public transport and cycle (on the south coast it's quite good, but obviously nowhere near london standard). I would encourage my house to recycle and stick a solar panel up, but I live with my mum who says she has enough hassle as it is (and I think she actually does), so I don't bother her with it. But the American government's near total wish to ignore that the problem exists is pretty key in getting the ball truly rolling, because the obvious solution (as you said) is fierce management by governments to enforce it along with cooperation from the general population. Why? Because they have to build the infrastructure (e.g. improved public transport) to cope with the changes necessary, so that people can help more. Obviously there are ways we can assist via the laws of supply and demand for example by buying local produce to discourage shipping of goods via cargo plane from all over the world, but there's only so much people can realistically do to help.

Governments being generally being untrustworthy is not something i'm new to. Infact this issue is the one that really shows up capitalism. Although I remember reading recently someone did work that it was more profitable to tackle climate change than not (think it was off BBC, but can't remember)

Re: Kyoto
 

I look at history and see that things do not change unless millions say no. But even that is not enough. By the time poeple say no, those who govern are no longer able to govern.But I believe it is possible to speed up this evolution. Everything is such a mass, so much interconnected, problems are so internal to one another. and wish that we had a huge scissors.

It is not nice to be so hopeless, people turn into self-involved creatures like me. For there is nothing to do.

Re: Kyoto
 

hay guys dont mention the war

Re: Kyoto
 

I recommend reading Joel Kovel on environment issues. He is very good, that's if you are interested.

Re: Kyoto
 

That's what people have been saying for the last two elections. ;|

Re: Kyoto
 

would you welcome tradeable individual carbon allowances, and could they work?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4479226.stm

Re: Kyoto
 

Yeah, and those darned Americans stood us up both times.

Re: Kyoto
 

Dante's American?

Re: Kyoto
 

A large part of the reason why the UK is meeting its targets is because we've been using a lot less coal fueled power stations over the last few years. Apparently oil fueled stations produce less carbon dioxide.

Re: Kyoto
 

That doesn't seem like much of a long term solution. :)

Re: Kyoto
 

Tony's solution to this is to build more nuclear power stations. Even less CO2 emissions ftw! \o/

Apparently renewable energy is not a viable solution.

Re: Kyoto
 

I don't see the point of converting from coal to oil (actually gas, I think) first then; but yeah, nuclear would be the best option (assuming he can actually pull it off). George Bush wants the US to build more nuclear power plants too, but it's one thing to say it and quite another to make it happen. :/
Not if you want a lot of it, no. :)

Re: Kyoto
 

I guess we can thank Maggie Thatcher for that. Since she closed practically all the coal mines (the UK currently has a grand total of 2 left in operation I believe, with one of them closing soon) we now have the option of either importing the dirty dirty coal or using cleaner alternatives like gas and oil, which we still produce a pretty large quantity of thanks to the North Sea.

Though I guess we could also reopen some coal mines but I don't see anybody doing that any time soon.

Re: Kyoto
 

i hate politicians but the current "global climet situation" almost makes me enraged enough to become a Green Party politician candidate (or something)

Re: Kyoto
 

The recent Newsnight discussion (fairly rowdy at times, admittedly) on climate change was interesting. The general consensus was that nothing meaningful could be done about climate change without whole-sale and revolutionary change. A couple took fairly optimistic/myopic views of the situation: they were willing to trust that technology would eventually evolve so far as to compensate for the stress we put upon the environment. One flatly refused to believe that science could predict any long-term result of climate change.