I'm Back and More Environment Stuff

First up, apologies for the lack of posting since forever. I'm back and I should be able to be regular from now on. I'm also going to change tack a bit and keep thsi blog purely current affairs (I've got others where I can sound off about Anna Nicole Smith and Hot Fuzz).

Now on to the important things. I'm afraid I'm sticking with the theme of climate change (isn't it kind of stunning that in the year since I last posted the same issues are still stuck in the same places). Two reports from the BBC have struck me today. One - Nuclear review 'was misleading' - shows how little the UK government has actually the thought about nuclear power before deciding to move forward. They've chosen this as the easy 'don't upset the electorate' option and frankly it disgusts me. It's terrifying when a Tory leader who is a despicable person realises that renewable power is what people want to hear about (even if he is just doing it as a headline grabbing part of his party's rehabilitation) and the leader of Labour doesn't. The report is about the fact that a judge ruled today that when putting together it's nuclear power review last year that it didn't properly consult and presented some misleading information to the consultees. David Milliband (bless the little twat) then insists (in stunning display of 'I could run at a million miles an hour if I wanted to I just don't feel like it' playground petulance) that the Government could appeal but they've decided not to and also that the report doesn't criticise the information but rather the consultation process. Which is a lie. Mr Justice Sullivan said that the information provided was 'misleading' (check out the Greenpeace press release). Go Milli! In my book if the information on which you base your report is misleading and false then the report itself is going to be misleading. But there ya go.

Also from the BBC today comes news that Tony Blair wants to set limits for raises in temperature above a level which would cause catastrophe (Leaders plot path to climate deal). The pointlessness of setting targets for reducing climate change to a level that would only cause a bit of a world ending disaster is obvious but what really gets me about this is that most climatologists agree that global temperatures are going to rise by a couple of degrees over the next century because of what we've all already done to the planet. It's wrong to concentrate on the limiting temperature rise when we've got no real idea how much impact anything has (that's not to say it doesn't have an impact, just that we can't calculate how much of a temperature increase each coal power station creates). What we should be doing is setting wide ranging, enforceable targets for reducing emissions, from transport to households to power generation. There is no magic bullet, this is going to take a wide ranging approach that is going to need people to make changes to the way they live their lives. What Blair is proposing is a way to let us all sleep a little better. You know, when a flood kills millions in Asia and the water doesn't recede we can all go "Well the Government is trying to limit temperature rise so I don't need to stop taking 14 flights to the end of the road every year".

To continue with the theme the always excellent Comment is Free on the gruaniad website has a great thread started by a piece by Jeremy Seabrook about taking responsibility for climate change - All Together Now.