Digital Dialogues - EYP Talk - Have your say on Europe's future - The Challenge of Climate Change - Comments

Sign off comment

Ian Millar moderator — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:32:32 +0000

Climate change has variously been described as the greatest threat to our way of life and a figment of the collective imagination. In some respects it is a unique problem insofar as there is as much debate about identifying the problem as there is about the solutions themselves. On our forum at least, there appears to be something of an emerging consensus that climate change is man-made and something that needs to be addressed. This, I think, represents an important shift. Alcoholics Anonymous claim that the first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. If that is the case then we can now begin to come to terms with our carbon addiction. It appears to me that the greatest challenge with respect to climate change is deciding where to go now. Most contributors were in agreement that we needed to be more energy efficient and reduce our carbon footprint. However, there was no real agreement on how we should go around doing this or who should take responsibility. Perhaps, as Emma points out, it is difficult to take responsibility for something that is set to have little impact in our lifetimes. It is fitting that this discussion should represent the beginning and not the end of the climate change debate. Climate change is a long-term problem that will require to be constantly addressed for the foreseeable future, and as such the debate cannot end here. I hope this forum has sparked your interest in this topic, and maybe even encourage you to take action, but most of all I hope that I will persuade you to keep the debate going.

What I found interesting

Ian Millar moderator — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:32:10 +0000

What I found interesting about Campbell's post was that he phoned up his local council for a recycling bin - in a sense deferring responsibility to them, for this simple way to make a change. I myself am guilty of this - its too easy to say the council is responsible for recycling, or the government/big business is responsible for climate change. Though I continue to believe that government can make it easier for its citizens to be environmentally friendly, perhaps it is time that we as individuals take ownwership of this. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has any thoughts on this, especially our experts, or anyone who is watching the discussion but not added anything themselves yet.

Challenge of Climate Change

cprice — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:31:11 +0000

Thanks to everyone for some very interesting posts on this topic. Having recently chaired a committee on the issue, I was struck by the need to tackle that particularly dangerous apathy associated with energy consumption/recycling that 'one person cannot make a difference'. So struck in fact that I phoned up my local council and ordered a recycling box, to receive a very courteous response. But as Ian asks, where do you go from these small steps to something larger and more cohesive?

correction!!!!

Teddy_D — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:25:48 +0000

Ooops!!! I've jus noticed a small mistake - sorry, everybody I'm just really pressurised with all my January modules coming up!!!! I am a member of EYP, not EP!!! Sorry!!!

Climate Change

Teddy_D — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:46:59 +0000

Hello everybody My name is Theodora (or Teddy, for short - as you prefer) and I am a member of the European Parliament. The climate change is an enormous issue - even my Economics exam in a week and a half is on the policies that could be applied to combat climate change. There is no denial that some measures should be taken to slowen down the process of climate change, mainly by reducing pollution and probably by using environmentally-friendly resources of energy production. And yet, there is a big dispute over which energy resources are environmentally friendly or not - there are even people claiming that the cost of wind farms in terms of wasted land is incomparable to the benefits of environmentally-friendly produced energy... Or is it environmentally friendly at all? On the other hand, if governments try and make firms take account of the external cost of pollution, then wouldn't this worsen energy poverty since prices would jump into the air? Especially if a carbon tax is implemented. On the other hand, even if the Emissions Trading Scheme is put into operation, there has to be a market for the permits... and countries would still have to face the issues of energy poverty as well as finding an alternative, a SUITABLE alternative. Moreover, this wouldn't work at all unless it is applied on a global scale.. Finally, I recenlty watched a programme on the BBC about the climate changes - and the variant for humanity to move to Mars was investigated into...

Where now?

Ian Millar moderator — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:42:54 +0000

So we generally seem to be agreed that there is a problem that needs to be addressed - even if that problem has not been entirely accurately or helpfully characterised by the media/Al Gore. The big question seems to be where do we go from here? Clearly there is no one big idea that can solve everything, but i'd like to hear what you think needs done. To start you off here are a few ideas: It strikes me that we as individuals need help from business and government to make a difference. Apparently standby can account for up to 10 per cent of a household's energy use. If standby was eliminated as an option on new electrical goods that prevent a significant waste of energy. It needn't be as radical as that - perhaps regulation could stipulate that standby had to time out and switch off the appliance after half an hour. On new building projects it should be a planning condition that each housing or business development be able to provide say at least 5 per cent of its energy from renewable on-site resources (e.g. solar panels). Similarly extensions to existing property would have to meet standards for insulation and sustainability.

In discussing climate change

James Montgomery — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:56:14 +0000

In discussing climate change there is a huge amount of disinformation in the media. This is not due to scientists scaremongering but due to terrible journalism. Journalists tend to read the abstract of a scientific paper and cherry pick the most worrying figures. Due to the huge skepticism around climate change it is important when reporting conclusions to explain levels of possible error or how simulations were run. Almost all of the published papers which criticize climate change have at their routes funding from the oil and gas industry however, a huge number of papers are government funded which could imply impartiality. It doesn't help when respected figures such as Al Gore twist the facts (in the recent film he draws a link between tropical storms and climate change). What I’m trying to say is that more in-depth responsible coverage is required. Unfortunately few journalists or politicians have a scientific or engineering background and so fail to fully understand scientific papers and the concept of peer review. p.s. this site has an excellent moderator

Does every little bit help?

BenHouchen — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:06:35 +0000

I am a second year student studying law and am facinated by politics, national and international and I think climate change and the environment is going to play a central role in many national governments in the future, more so than it is at present. Climate change is a sleeping giant, that is if it hasn't already been awakened by the increasing media attention it has attracted over recent times. I suggest this because although there seems to be a move towards being "environmentally friendly" people generally are giving lip service to it rather than taking it as seriously as it ought to. There are many initiatives by governments aimed at trying to reduce things such as carbon emissions, which as I understand are a leading cause in global warming. Such examples of these are suggestions made in Britain to tax cars for distance travelled aiming to reduce travel to essential cases. Its good that the government are realising that something needs to be done, however, they seem to be working reactively again as they have in many other political agendas which have surfaced over recent times. I read, although I am sorry I have no citation for this information, that if the whole world stopped producing carbon emissions completely but China continued to do so as it is. They would have equalled and doubled the worlds output in a year. This I found quite allarming as it suggests to me that although the smalls things we do can only help, its the bigger picture that needs to be observed. The only thing that can help climate change are nations and organisations, such as the EU, negotiating with emerging powers such as China and India, which I believe have been accepted as a future giant global economy (although thats a different discussion). I believe it is only nations that can effect this issue. Why they haven't been more proactive is again open to discussion but obvious reasons are the damaging effect it would have to any of the world powers economy as it wouldn't be cost effective to reduce or slow production to help reduce emissions. I do not profess to know everything there is on this subject, indeed I profess to know very little. I would just like to know the state of friction between nations on the issue and what is being done to come to a compromise?

Selflessness?

Emma Campbell — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:23:21 +0000

Chris said... "I believe reducing our dependancy on coal, oil, and gas is paramount to our childrens future." Do you think people will be willing to make personal sacrifices when they themselves are unlikely to see the result, though? I know Tony Blair's recent comments have shocked a lot of people, when he said it was "impractical" to expect people to stop or even cut down on flying abroad for holidays. But it's so hard to make changes when, as reports have pointed out, the next 30 years are spoken for in terms of the damage we've already done. It will be decades before changes we make now even take effect.

Climate change

chris.mackin — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:16:54 +0000

Dear All, My name is Chris Mackin, I am a member of EYPUK and I study in Edinburgh university, with European Studies as my main subject area. I have been browsing through the comments thus far in this discussion and would like to raise some points. First of all, with regards to what Rich(ard) has said, even if the research statistics, media stories, official government and parliamentary releases, and European Commission green papers are simply scaremongering (which personally I dont believe they are) should we not be striving for a way to preserve our natural resources in order to be able to sustain our planet and provide our children with as good an existence as we have at the moment? It is with this in mind that I wholeheartedly support what Mr Avery has said, as I believe reducing our dependancy on coal, oil, and gas is paramount to our childrens future. Secondly, and with regards to the Commissions proposals, I went onto the Europa website scanning for the EU budget expecting to be posting on this forum to state that I thought the proposals of the increase of 50% of the Energy budget was ludicrous. However, after reading the budget I would argue that an increase of 50% does NOT go far enough. This is our planet we are talking about. Do we want to see more flooding in the UK? Even less snow in the Alps? I for one do not want to take a trip to Latvia in january and find that my dream of a snowy Riga has not materialised! I can make lighthearted comments, but this is a serious issue. Could spending on energy research not be increased further, perhaps by 75% or by the same 50% over a shorter time period, e.g. 5 years? With developing nations, whilst focus should undoubtedly be on reducing poverty levels and aiding through structural funds, we should ensure that when infrastructure is being developed, it should be done using more sustainable and renewable energy resources. While initial costs may be higher, this will be offset by reduced costs in the future, and hopefully a more prosperous nation. I look forward to reading further comments on this topic and hope that through our discussions we can make a difference!

Green Paper on Energy

Ian Millar moderator — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:26:22 +0000

Today the European Commision published its proposals on climate change: Q&A: EU energy proposals European Commission: The Green Paper Energy What do you think? Do the proposals go far enough? Are the renewables targets feasible? If we're going to have an external energy policy what areas should it cover? How, for example, should we proceed with developing nations?

States and the Kyoto

Speck_of_gold — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:17:15 +0000

Hello everyone, my name is Matea and I am a member of the EYP. Recent events concerning global warming have finally shook up the governments a bit. If not that, they have shurely risen up the awareness of the problem. People are starting to understand that global warming isn't a thing of decades to come, it is indeed happening at the very moment, and it is only to become worse. Massive floods, unbearable temperatures and tornadoes, which we are whitnesses of every day, are only a small part of what is about to start to happen on our planet. So no, I do not belive the problem is underestimated. The bigger the awareness and panic-the higher pressure on gouvenments to make some serious steps. However, most of the problem lies in irresponsible behaviour of the United States. As the biggest polluters in the world, they have rationally decided not to sign the Kyoto. So untill they come to their senses and drastically reduce their pollution of the atmosphere, I belive there is little to be done. As we know, their pollution affects everybody. As a example I give you Croatia, a country with poorly developed industry, and a temperature of 13 degrees on January the 10th?!?! Lets just hope they are going to realise it soon...

in reponse to our experts

RichardRoyal — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:19:47 +0000

Dear All, Hello, My name is Rich(ard) and I'm a member of the European Youth Parliament alumni. I'd just like to query a few points made by our experts and it would be great if they, and others, could reply. Firstly if we take the points made by the apty named Mark Avery. He tells us that "...Unless we dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels there will be huge impacts: sea levels will rise, ice caps will melt, deserts will spread and the climate will change in many dramatic ways affecting all life on this planet..." I'd like to ask why Mr Avery is so sure of this. Whilst I can not disagree that there is some evidence to suggest this, there is also evidence to suggest that such dramatic consequences to our planet are not as inevitable as is made out. Would it ve wrong of me to suggest that some people and organisations are engaged in hyperbole in order to create a climate of fear towards climate change... exaggerating a problem in order to suit there own agendas? I write this with no intention to criticise any organsiation, including Mr Avery's. Next, Catherine Stihler tells us of her bulbs growing and budding in January. I would ask is this such a bad thing... if the climate changes, and we benefit in the UK with more sunshine, a hotter summer, and greener/brighter plants who am I to complain. I know i like lounging in the sun all day, don't you? Finally we have the comment of David Baldock who informs us of moves of the President of the EU Commission to the USA in order to highlight our methods of tackling climate change and to "..urge the US to follow suit..." Is this a realistic approach to the worlds greatest super power? is it not time for the EU to get tough with the US if they are to continue to ignore policies such as the Kyoto Agreement? Simply urging the US is indicative of a lack of faith in Europe behind climate change policy, and perhaps is indicative of a lack of authority?... I would love to hear any cries of disagreement Rich

Welcome

Ian Millar moderator — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:21:25 +0000

Hi everyone. My name is Ian Millar and I am a member of the European Youth Parliament. I'll be moderating this topic and I am very much looking forward to reading your ideas and suggestions about climate change. First of all I'd like to thank our experts for opening the discussion and sharing some of their initial thoughts. Climate change is one of those issues that really seems to have exploded on to the scene over the last year. It seems that every day another politician is cycling to work or posing for a picture as a windmill is installed on their roof, but is this really making a difference? Sometimes it seems that we are getting little more than symbolic soundbites from our politicians rather than real solutions. From this discussion I'd like to hear your ideas about how we should go forward. What kind of concrete solutions can or should we pursue? Difficult decisions will have to be made - are there any ways of smoothing the transition? What can governments do to help us as individuals reduce our carbon emmissions? Where does responsibility lie for climate change? These are just some of the questions surrounding climate change, so get posting with your answers and any other questions you might have.

The challenge of climate change

David Baldock — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:28:25 +0000

After years of scientific inquiry and political debate, it is now generally accepted that climate change is happening, and represents the greatest global environmental challenge that we face. It therefore requires a dramatic policy response from the international community, but this is far from easy to achieve. In this respect the EU, as one of the largest trading blocs in the world and one of the main emitters of greenhouse gases, is playing a crucial role both in pressing for action on the international stage, and leading by example at home. Internationally, for example, EU representatives had been pressing hard in negotiations to secure a follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol when the first commitment period ends in 2012. In January, EU Commission President Barosso visited Washington both to highlight the steps being taken in Europe to tackle climate change, and to urge the US to follow suit. Domestically, too, many aspects of policies that affect the everyday lives of the EU's citizens are decided collectively at EU level. Major examples of this include the following:

The EU’s flagship climate policy, the Emissions Trading Scheme, is developing rapidly to help industry to cut it to carbon emissions as efficiently as possible. There are plans to increase its coverage, e.g. by including aviation in the scheme, and to establish it as the cornerstone of a global system.
A range of measures are being used to encourage the car industry to manufacture cars with lower CO2 emissions. As transport is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, and as European norms and standards in the car market tend to be copied across the world, this should help future car buyers around the world to be able to choose cleaner cars.
More generally, a new energy efficiency action plan will require changes to many of the products that we use in our daily lives, such as electrical appliances and even buildings. There are also steps to encourage more use of renewable electricity and biofuels.

The EU has made good progress in developing policy tools such as these, but actual results in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions have been poor thus far in most EU member states. The priority now, therefore, is to demonstrate substantial real cuts in our emissions, both before and after the 2012 target date. Unless we can do this, Europe’s credibility on the international stage will be damaged and our policies will be dismissed as all talk and no action. Tackling climate change will require concerted action by all of us as individuals, and by governments at all levels. Inevitably the EU can seem very remote from the individual, and cannot seek to influence our behaviour directly, but it can change how industry manufactures the things that we need, and improve the products that we choose to buy.

The Challenge of Climate Change

Graham — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:54:21 +0000

The challenge of climate change: how can people and governments across Europe help to tackle this global threat?

The panellists in this discussion are:

Mark Avery
Director of Conservation, RSPB

Mark Avery is a scientist by training who heads up the RSPB’s conservation work – from nature reserves to species reintroductions and from research on threatened birds to lobbying government on land use policies that affect wildlife. He has solar panels on his house, gets his energy from RSPB Energy – a green energy scheme – but has to admit to having well-exceeded his lifetime allocation of air travel.

David Baldock
Director, Institute for European Environmental Policy

David Baldock is the Director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy, an independent think tank that seeks to encourage positive environmental policies in Europe. As well as being an authority on European agricultural policy and the environment, David’s specialist areas include the implementation of environmental legislation; and EU strategy with regard to environmental integration. He has an active interest in sustainable development and the external dimension of European policy.

Catherine Stihler MEP

Catherine Stihler has been a Member of the European Parliament representing Scotland since 1999. She is a member of the European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee, Regional Development Committee, and a substitute member on the Transport and Tourism Committee. She is Labour’s European Spokesperson for Fisheries and also for Regional Policy. She is also the Vice President of the Moscow Platform. She served as Deputy Leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party from 2004 – 2006.