Sustainable Futures: Energy, Development and the Environment

Add a Comment

Comment by Richard Tebboth on May 25, 2011 at 15:48

Revised URL

http://www.economist.com/node/18712497

 

'Chris Huhne is ...doing a great job'

According to whose criteria?

 

Comment by David Pollard on May 25, 2011 at 9:16

I worry that Chris Huhne is going to disappear from the scene, but in the meantime he is doing a great job. Recently Nick Clegg pushed forward the 'Green investment bank' idea. From what you read in the press, the LibDems are up against the Treasury on green issues. Those of us who care should campaign on the side of the LibDems to make sure something is done. 

Comment by I.D.Dolan-Betney on May 24, 2011 at 18:00

Richard, you want to try that again. Your link goes nowhere

Comment by Richard Tebboth on May 24, 2011 at 15:53

See my comment on

www.economist.com/node/18712497?story_id=1812497



Comment by Pronoia on November 25, 2010 at 20:53

I absolutely, fundamentally, agree with you Mr Dolan-Betney. Science cannot tell you the future. But it can give you a degree of risk; probabilities. We are not going to get there any time soon. Everyone has played down that we have not halted the loss of biodiversity. But we have changed the targets !

That should be communicated as a tremor. Biodiversity is our litmus test, our canary in the coalmine.

And still we play politics. Yes, we are a cooperative species, but we don't cooperate enough.

Comment by I.D.Dolan-Betney on November 18, 2010 at 22:55

Are we not in danger of believing that what we believe to be science is in itself not a solution to our problems?
Science has for many a years attempted to provide us with the information we need to make a reasoned decision.
What science cannot do is tell us the future. It can help us discover it, but take care not to ignore the bad news whilst encouraging the good.
A good example right now is 'How much oil is there left?'
Science is definitely at odds with politics on this one.
To believe that we can extract more and more every year without affecting the reserves available is obviously nonsense to anybody who understands basic arithmetic.
Yet we still behave as though we have all the time in the world to solve this particular problem.
The numbers however give a different story, one that should frighten the life out of anybody who thinks we can manage our current energy problems.
There is little point in funding science if we then allow politicians to make the decisions.
Are we going to actually talk about the problems and the solutions ot just re-gurgitate the same ignorant beliefs into a world that does not care if we are right or wrong. A world that just doesn't care. Science doesn't care, it just tries as best as it can to tell us the truth. Whether we use that truth to minimise the effect we are having on the planet or choose to continue to rape the planet until it can no longer support us is our choice and our reality.

We need to start taking the question of sustainability seriously and stop playing games with our childrens future.

Comment by Simon Jerram on November 17, 2010 at 10:31

The "we will have both" statement appeals to me.

Too often arguments become reduced to useless one-dimentional slanging matches. "We should not do X, we should do Y" in an arena where there is no reason not to do X and Y, and Z as well. A particularly idiotic one is arguing against renewable resources because we should be pushing for more energy efficiency- er what? We need both! We need a whole range of measures.

A prime example is a recent report into biofuels which seemed to calculate land take based on one particular technology. But biofuel is not one thing, it is a whole raft of technology- not all of which require land use.

Even in the case where bio-fuels are farmed, we have lots of land set-aside under the Common Agricultural Policy that can be used before there is any impact on food crops or . We may need to revise the targets, but we are a long way from the limits of the contributions of bio fuels.

At the same time it's disheartening to hear people arguing for new technology as a substitute for individuals taking responsibility for their own lifestyles. Despite measures to reduce energy use, and devices that use less and less energy, our use of resources is not falling. We, and I mean we because I'm no better than anyone else, all need to take responsibility for our actions. We need to stop childishly resenting the messengers who remind us of this.

Comment by Pronoia on October 2, 2010 at 8:22

"A deal is a deal, and I will deliver. I’m fed up with the stand-off between renewable and nuclear which means we have neither – we will have both. We will have low carbon energy, and security of supply."

Which was always the realistic view anyway. His comments on clean coal are a bit disingenuous to be honest. We are already well on the way with demonstration projects. In fact the whole process could stall due to the complexity of the process.

Comment by David Pollard on September 29, 2010 at 9:56

I though Chris Huhne's speech was just what environmentalists need to hear. At last we have a Climate Change Secretary ready to actually TAKE ACTION rather than produce endless targets, strategies and action plans like the last lot. In my opinion if there is action on Climate Change its worth being in coalition with the Tories.

Comment by Simon Oliver on September 28, 2010 at 20:32

and the conference speech is available on the main website
http://www.libdems.org.uk/speeches_detail.aspx?title=Chris_Huhne%3a...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page