jethro

Darkman, I've tried to see where you're coming from on all of the above and to be honest I'm struggling somewhat. The bottom line is we all live on the same planet and whatever measure is needed to ensure the future of the planet and safety of it's inhabitants, has got to be a good thing surely? We have finite resources which we've squandered with a short-sighted, let's have it all now mentality. It can't go on forever, irrespective of climate change. If that means we have to curb our consumption or alter our perspective either voluntarily or by enforcement then what harm can it do? Compare our easy modern day, western civilization with our ancestors or those in less developed countries and I think it's hard to argue that we don't have room to manouver, we could have a monumental drop in our living standards and still come nowhere near to the subsistant, meagre lives some poor fellows have to suffer each and every day of their lives. So, we may have to pay a bit more, we may be inconvenienced; big deal. I could go on to answer all of your above points and more but no one wants to read a tediously long post and anyway, I don't have all the answers, neither do you. I will however address one point, your last, Carbon. Yes, it's a naturally occuring substance but our use of it is far from natural. We have completely disrupted the natural Carbon cycle to our own end. The Carbon we are emitting from our power stations/cars etc was sequested from the atmosphere a very long time ago, if left alone where it was buried, it would not be in our current atmosphere. If the technology we have today was fuelled by the Carbon in our current atmosphere, then it wouldn't be a problem. Natural in origin it may be, harmless in concentrated doses, it is not. We were tapping away at the same time PP, have to say I agree with you all you say.

Any thoughts anyone on my last post? Genuine question, there must be someone out there who knows more about this than me.

I know you do, but hey, the world would be a dull old place if we all thought the same. Opinions are just that, neither right nor wrong, whoever expresses them. Let's agree to disagree eh. Agreed, which is precisely the point I've been trying to make in another thread. The problem is caused by each and everyone of us, consumer and industry alike. We all collectively should be making a difference instead of expecting others to make the changes or pay for those changes.

I also disagree with your arguments about things being sudden. They have not been sudden at all (holding aside the last nine months); there has been a steady decline in the frequency, longevity and intensity of cold over the past 20 years, and a concurrent increase in warmth across all three dimensions. I can see where you're coming from but...I'm not altogether sure that the bench mark of the last 20 years or so holds true. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to find out more about the decline in the Earth's magnetic field and in amongst all the reading I've done about Carbon 14 (which increases in concentration in the atmosphere as the magnectic field declines) ; I've discovered that larger amounts of Carbon 14 cause global cooling. Our detonation of Nuclear weapons also throws huge amounts of Carbon 14 into the atmosphere; the first known nuclear test bomb was set off in 1945, followed by quite a few years of 100's of nuclear test bombs. Having discovered this I'm more inclined to think our cooler climate prior to the last 20 years was caused artificially by the addition of Carbon 14. If this is the case, then our test bench mark of rapid warming over the last 20 years no longer holds true and what we are actually seeing is a continuation of an upward curve that has been gradually climbing for a much greater period but been suppressed by the additional Carbon 14. This would in some measure explain why the rapid increase in recent years, which cannot be explained by Co2 alone. I would also add, the testing of nuclear weapons has decreased dramatically in the same corresponding time period. Is this a coincidence? I'm inclined to think not.

Well said that man. It's no good the man in the street pointing his finger at industry, declaring they are the big sinners when it's the man in the street who consumes at an ever greater rate, the products of the polluting industry.

Thanks PP. Shopping; the new religion, aaaaaaaaaaargh spare me from it.

Thanks P3, never heard of him before but my god, he talks a lot of sense. Or should that be he shares the same perspective as myself, the same one I've tried to make here; he's altogether far more eloquent than I though.

Hi James, it's a Cotoneaster. There are loads of different ones but looking at the picture it's likely to be Cotoneaster Lacteus if it's red berried or Cotoneaster Frigidus Fructu Luteo if the berries are yellow. Hope this helps.

I sincerely hope that's not just a dream we both share. Needs instead of wants being the primary driver would make such a massive difference to the world as a whole. I truely believe the only people who profit from the endless drive to have more, are those who produce the "more" we so desperately strive to obtain. The endless treadmill of working harder, longer hours to gain the money required to pay off the credit we've borrowed to buy the gadgets the media/manufacturer have convinced us our life will be enriched by, if we have them. I trained and worked in the publishing/advertising trade for years; it's a soulless world of insecurity designed to be self-serving.

Made me smile too.

I said I'd bow out of this debate, the apathy to want to do something if it hurt our economy/individual pockets/choices was making me increasingly cross; I recognise my ability to rant from a soapbox serves no constructive purpose. But, someone else posted a BBC report this morning and I quote from it: IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri said the report was "stunning". "Human society as a whole has to look for changes in consumption patterns," he told reporters at a news conference in the Thai capital. And: But, observed Dr Pachauri, economic incentives are needed to drive any technological transformation. "Technology alone will not be enough," he told BBC News, "and in any case, technology has a clear connection with government policy. "Incentives... must come from taxes or a carbon price." Guess I'm not alone afterall in believing a fundamental change of perspective of consumer consumption has to be enforced. DDT was dangerous; it was banned. CFC's were bad; they were banned. Passive smoking is dangerous; smoking in confined public places, it's been banned. Leaded petrol; not a good idea, it was banned. DDT was cheap and effective, ditto CFC's, passive smoking dismissed with "you don't like it, walk away, it's my right", leaded petrol, what's all the fuss about, what's the difference. Lead based paint, solvent based paint, creosote, yada yada yada; the list goes on and on. All banned and enforced because at the end of the day, voluntary changes are ineffectual and long in coming.

I like many others on this forum lurked in the background for quite sometime before daring to post. I read lots, here and elsewhere, learned a great deal and reached the conclusion that yes global warming and climate change is real. I don't believe it's all down to AGW; I've voiced my doubts and the reasons why many times. I've been shot down in flames, I've had my posts interpretted as I don't give a damn about the consequences or that I'm naive, or idealistic or ignorant. All fair comments if that's someone's opinion, it is afterall a public forum, to participate invites criticism and I think I'm fairly good at standing up for myself. I've taken on board and broadly understood the global impact of AGW and as a doubter/sceptic/naysayer I believe we have to limit our output of Co2. So how come, as one of the heretics, I appear to be alone in thinking if me and mine are causing a problem with our consumption of resources then we should be penalised and our consumption taxed for the greater good? I understand the theory behind the carrot approach, big carrot, little stick etc but big carrots can't or won't be waved around forever will they. The general consensus of this discussion seems to be if it's cheaper, we'll be greener. It surely follows, if it's not cheaper five years hence then we'll carry on consuming, business as usual. If that's the case what's this forum and many others like it, for then; rhetorical postering? Bartering knowledge and intellect? I find it saddening and worrying, in equal measure that the end conclusion appears to be hey folks, there's a problem, we're really not helping, loads of people may die or lose their homelands, reckon we should do something about it, so long as it doesn't cost me anything, so long as it doesn't restrict my choices. I guess I'm in the wrong forum folks.

Can't tell you what your bush is without a piccie I'm afraid. I am lucky to have a lovely big garden but it was alot less lovely when we moved in. How about going down the local garden centre and getting more plants to add to your collection; gardening is dead easy, not really the black art it's made out to be. If you need a bit of help either with inspiration or basic "how to " then pop down to B&Q (shameless plug coming up), pick up a copy of "Outdoor Living" it's a book I co-wrote for them a couple of years ago, it covers just about everything you need to know about gardening and design. I'd encourage everyone to create their own little patch of paradise to relax in, does wonders for the soul. Don't worry about about the local flora flowering a bit earlier, they're resilient things, next year they could do the complete opposite. Thanks for the kind comments. Green fingers available for hire but you're a little too far away I'm afraid. B&Q? :blink:

And the incentive to produce products environmentally and technically better comes from where? The cost is borne by whom? The manufacturer? Why should they? When it comes to TV's, I'd lay money and quite a bit of it on the consumer demand being led by wanting the latest, newest, trendiest must have; it's sod all to do with running costs or the fact that the old one is broken, it's just another "I want". I'm not against people; resolving in partnership with people requires involving people, making them aware and responsible for their input into a global problem, not encouraging them to think in terms of their pocket, their endless desire for more. More comes with a higher price than a monetary one.

Precisely, which is why consumer led environmentalism is so successful. Five years ago, how many organic or fair trade products could you buy in the local supermarket? Very few and they were hugely over-priced, now there's a vast range and they're much more affordable. Consumer led demand. I'm tired of the whole doom and gloom, we're ruining the world ethos whilst everyones seems content to comment and sit on their backsides doing nothing. Sure, recycling helps as do many other measures adopted by many but relistically, it's a drop in the ocean. The fundamental cause is we want far more than this planet can safely sustain. If that means we have less, whether that be in money in our pockets or toys we don't need, so be it. All the booming economies in the world are going to be utterly useless if the planet becomes unihabitable; or at least vast tracts of it. It's not the USA, or China, or India; it's all of us in the developed world, when does the buck stop being passed? What do you suggest? More money invested into more research to develope alternative technology is hardly logistical naivety; it's how organisations like Micro Soft become world leaders with a vastly successful business. Recession in this country or any other is hardly comparable to the loss of millions of lives around the world due to climate change. A shift in perspective is the only way the world is going to have any long term impact upon what we as a species are doing to our world. If it were as easy as just informing people of problems and how they can be/should be fixed then why is say Bob Geldof for example still saying the same thing, twenty odd years after his first impassioned appeal? Because people hear and either do nothing or not enough, or for long enough, because no one is making them and the problems don't affect them directly.

The disparity between those who have and those who have not, those who can afford, those who cannot, is and always has been part of every culture in every country. With the best will in the world, that will never change. I would however argue, that some of the poorest people in the world be it in Africa or Asia will pay a far higher price for our consumerism if the IPCC predictions come true. Who's need is greater; the man in the street who can't afford the latest gizmo or the man who's land is under three feet of water or who hasn't had a drop of rain in years and has no way to feed his family? Why must there be cost effective alternatives with subsidies for things no one actually needs? And why should we expect to have everything we want?

I'm not suggesting restriction but awareness of culpability. If you read an earlier post I made, my suggestion was that the tax raised should be used to develope/subsidise alternative technology. If manufacturing giants faced a carbon tariff on their products then sooner or later, I suspect sooner, as profits were eaten into, they would place greater emphasis on developing cleaner technology. At the moment there is no incentive, just inclination to pass the buck. The end result would be the same products, produced in a much more sustainable manner, the carbon/emission reduction would then be passed on to the consumer via a reduced tax burden if they bought the greener product. Yes, this would take time to feed through the system down to the man in the street but why should the man in the street get away buck free when it is this consumer driven society, with it's ever increasing desire for more, bigger, better that has been at the route cause of the problem. We all know the cost of VAT, if the carbon cost was isolated and labelled on products, an ingredients list if you like then awareness of our impact in our everyday decisions would be highlighted in an easily absorbed manner. How many people know the carbon cost of say a DVD player, energy production costs, material costs, shipping costs? I haven't a clue but I'd like to know so that I may make an informed decision.

I've made my suggestion, unpopular though it seems. Tax everything equally, consumer and industry. Don't see how anyone can pick and choose what to tax, with the possible exception of food but then that could be taxed at a corporate level, if the supermarket giants import vast quantities, they should bear the tax burden. It can be argued forever more about the running costs of modern appliances versus running costs of old but lets face it, many appliances these days, especially when it comes to entertainment, are replaced on a wanting the latest, must have model rather than a straight forward replacing broken ones. Ditto, cars, computers, games consoles, the list goes on and on. It's a throw away society, I had to get new ink cartridges for my printer the other day, it was cheaper to buy a new one complete with ink; that's got to be wrong. Everyone blames everyone else and expects everyone else to pick up the tab, lets face it, we're all guilty, we should all accept the responsibility for making the world a cleaner place. I don't for one minute believe the human race is entirely responsible for GW but there's a hell of a lot more Co2 in the atmosphere that we've put there, we should minimise our impact; in every sphere. Want what you want, have what you want, I'm not suggesting restricting anyone's consumer appetite, just be made aware of the impact that desire has and be prepared to pay for it. All of us.

No, far from it, just an old house, luckily with a larger than average garden. I think I probably put this in the wrong thread, they're not flowering early, just enjoyed the mild South Western winter. Thanks for the kind comments

Spring in my garden B)

I agree in essence with a lot of what you say, albeit from possibly a different perspective. Leaving the GW?AGW debate aside for a moment, pollutants in whatever form should be curtailed; we as a generation shouldn't leave a festering rubbish heap behind for our grandchildren and their grandchildren to live with/try to rectify. It's selfish and irresponsible. Someone, somewhere, and it may as well be here as anywhere else needs to, if necessary inflict a moral code on human consumption. You want it, you pay for it. Taxation has to be on everything, otherwise the debate goes round and round. If Britain led the way in Europe, made a stand and imposed carbon restrictions/tax on imports then those companies wishing to import to what is afterall, potentially a huge market,would be forced economically to research alternative materials and manufacturing methods. Telling China to cut it's carbon emmissions whilst buying into the products made is lunacy. Telling China and the rest of the world we'll only accept their imports if the British public will accept the taxation cost in their own pockets may on the other hand impose change. Sure people won't like it, but at least they would be aware and bear the cost of their choices. Did anyone here vote in favour of VAT? It's now an accepted reality, part of the purchase price, a carbon tariff would be no different. We as a nation had VAT imposed on us as condition to joining the EU, maybe it's about time our government went back to the EU and proposed such a tax; the european market is large in the global economy.

To a large extent, I agree HP. The must have, throw away culture we live in today has to be held responsible en masse. By and large, whatever the problem, be it personal, local or global the first reaction seems to be one of “it’s not my fault” or “look at them, they’re much worse than me” or “what difference can I possibly make”. The whole idea of personal responsibility for the choices we make seems to have died a death, in every area of our culture. Yesterday I spent a very tedious afternoon looking at fridge freezers, my twenty odd year old one has finally bitten the dust; trawling through a well known electrical chain store I was agog at folk buying 55inch flat screen TV’s, no doubt made in China. Why on earth does anyone need such a vast TV? I couldn’t help but smile at the irony of many, many people sat at home watching one of the many programs about GW and the destruction of our world, in huge, glorious, super screen detail; nodding their heads in agreement but in total ignorance of their personal contribution hanging on the wall, right in front of them. I don’t wholeheartedly believe in AGW but I do however believe the world’s resources are finite and should be used wisely. I’m an old farming gal, brought up to believe the land is not ours to do with as we please but that we are custodians for the next generation and it should be left in finer fettle than we inherited. Singling out areas of culture for taxation I believe will always be fraught with problems, it will always be divisive and ultimately counter productive. However, if everything from the food we eat to the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the TV’s we watch all had a carbon index calculated and taxed, then the choices we make would be brought back to a personal level. There could be multi levels of taxes, some more punitive than others, luxury goods attracting the highest levels. Sure it would take some time to implement but if every manufacturer had to provide a carbon cost for their product to be imported to this country, including the carbon cost of transporting it here; it could be included as part of their import license, then the majority of the setting up costs would not be borne by this country, it is after all in their interest to export worldwide. We have content labels on food, pressure from consumers has brought the fat, salt, and additives content down on many foodstuffs, and a large carbon tariff label attached to everything would at the very least increase awareness of how manufacture and shipping contributes to AGW. Peer pressure to have the latest gizmo might not seem so attractive when our neighbours know how much damage we are prepared to do to the environment in order to watch the same programs they do, only bigger. The taxes raised could be used to fund research into better, cleaner technology. They could be used to set up a grant scheme similar to the old ones which used to be in place to subsidise houses with no sanitation; only the grants would be for improving the insulation/lowering the energy losses on houses, installing alternative energy sources such as solar panels; repayable on a sliding scale if you sell within a given time period. I also see no reason why all new property developments, cannot be made to incorporate these measures on new builds, it could be a condition of planning consent. With the best will in the world, no one individual can change the world but everyone can change their own world and the part they play in the bigger picture, all those little bits add up. Sadly more often than not, those changes have to be enforced for the greater good; I believe this is one of those occasions. No one needs a vast TV or a new car every two years or strawberries in December or apples from New Zealand. If you insist upon having such things, be aware of the damage they cause, be prepared to stand up and have your choices questioned and be prepared to pay for it. And this little rant comes to you, courtesy of someone who believes that natural causes play a big role in GW but who also believes this planet is not ours to do with as we please, we’re custodians with a duty to leave it in finer fettle than we inherited.

Are you lot sure that Ash is out before the Oak usually? Never in my experience, Ash is always the last, whichever part of the country.

Very informative, thank you!

I don't normally enter into the fray on the current weather patterns on this forum, don't know anywhere near enough to comment but I do feel I have to add my twopennoth worth for once. I too share the opinion of Noggin and Tamara on this one, maybe it is a gender thing but, and correct me if I'm wrong; what happened to the Medieval warm period? As far as I know we have no way of checking what the actual weather was like then, but we do know that it was warmer than today, I think the consensus was it warmed quickly. So today's weather patterns/ high temps/warm winters are unprecedented? I don't think so. Maybe, just maybe it's cyclical?