I'm puzzled that there hasn't been more objection to the EC's plans to give away ("grandfather") carbon emission permits to existing polluters (mainly coal-fired power generators). Apart from a WWF-commissioned report in April which pointed out that this will be a 60 billion euro windfall to the polluters, I can't find any sign that European environmentalists realise how much of a scandal this is.

There seems to be a universal assumption, even among environmentalists, that we all have an inalienable human right to use a car in the first place. All the suggested solutions to this number one carbon emitter are merely tinkerings with our practice of using cars without need.

I suggest two actions.

First, it is about time that environmentalists recognize that the biggest cause of greenhouse emissions is the individual's use of the car, not governments and corporations. YOU are to blame, not them.

It's true ! Nigel Lawson has gone public and agreed to shut about about Global Warming, as long as everyone else who is not a scientist agrees to shut up too.

I read it in the Yorkshire Post, so it must be true :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Nigel-Lawson-A-very-inconvenient....

Published Date: 12 April 2008
Location: Yorkshire
A very inconvenient truth for the climate change alarmists
By Nigel Lawson

GLOBAL warming is among the most difficult and complex issues with which we are faced at the present time.

Well I thought this year's conference, which ended yesterday was absolutely great.

Climate change is going to affect our food supplies - arguably it already has, as wheat production was adversely affected by unseasonable damp weather (Scotland 2004) and unusually hot weather in Europe (2003). It has been said that bad harvests here and there are being offset by better ones somewhere else (eg wheat vs soybeans in the US 2006), but now the poor harvests seem to be showing up in crop prices:

Why is the price of bread important? - BBC News
Why wheat is luring the breadwinners - Guardian Unlimited

Hi

I am suggesting that wherever where your local council which has NOT set a target for carbon reduction we should campaign for a target. This can be done in a variety of ways, and in my next posting I will tell our story. But first lets dither about what target. We in Derby have decided to go for 25% reduction over 5 years. Here is the wording on our petition:

To let you all know. I have started an e-petition to Tony Blair.

The petition calls for international adoption of Contraction and Convergence, and the adoption of Carbon Rationing to ensure we hit our UK targets. You can add you names at the link below:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Carbon-Rationing/

The aim is to keep pushing this petition over the coming year, try and get some momentum going, so by next year's climate talks we have a significant petition to put before Gordon Brown or Tony Blair or whoever is PM at the time.

After exchanging emails with jo, it seems appropriate open a new topic on this popular and often controversial subject. Please treat this is a brainstorming area.

URGENT REMINDER
A call for evidence for the first All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group Inquiry

Below is the latest draft of the proposed campaign structure, including comments from the February 11th national meeting and developed a little further. First, THIS IS NOT A PERMANENT CONSTITUTION. It is a way to work for the rest of 2006, during which time we see how it goes. Nothing is cast in stone. Second, THIS IS A CONSULTATION DOCUMENT. We need to know what people think of it. NATIONAL COMMITTEE A national committee made up of about 55 people: 10 people elected by London meeting. One person each elected by local groups (some grouped together) Brighton Oxford and Wantage