mmm i dont really think its to much to be worrying about and personnally dont thing there is any type of climate disaster going on as there is not enough hard evidence to back it up. fair enough the caps are melting, but its not a first. it a cycle the world takes every couple of thousand years. but not everyone is going to agree with me. it all depend if you prefere things rambed down your troath or not.
It's ridiculous. The UK has enough wind potential to power itself many times over. It also has significant hydroelectric and tidal energy as well as some solar energy.
Yet the UK is still stuck in the stone age, with less than 5% of its energy coming from renewables. Norway generates nearly 45% of its energy from renewables. Other countries which generate more from renewables include, sweden, canada, france, italy, germany, australia, denmark, and even the US!
It really makes you wonder who they're listening to? Not the public, and definitely not the science! Coal is not part of a solution on climate change!
Emma's question, particularly the last point, is highly pertinent. There are no incentives for the public or industry to decrease energy usage by adopting appropriate methods and/or technologies. There's no incentive even for householders to replace old, inefficient gas boilers, or not to buy fashionable, but highly wasteful, open-fronted domestic gas fires, and those sinful patio heaters!
Excellent question Emma. Please respond to this question, Prime Minister Brown. Tell us why we cannot divert funds from traditional technologies to re-train our workforce and implement new strategies for cleaner sources of energy: a simple strategy, for example, would be to build new homes WITH solar panels in situ; this would bring down the cost of panels for homeowners who want to purchase them but find the current costs prohibitive.
An excellent question, Emma. Mr Brown, please pay attention to Emma's video and cancel any further consideration of plans for coal-fired power stations. There have to be other ways. pamela
However, dont think that it is only ONE coal fired power station that is planned, the government is planning to build many many more, what they call clean power stations. There is no such thing as a clean coal fired power station. It may be "clean" compared with the very dirty stations that are working now, but a clean station will still emit about half of the older ones.
Your generation need to take more interest in this subject - very soon you will be the decision makers. Global warming can be properly researched by visiting the IPCC website. Ignore the sceptics and their unsubstantiated opinions - they're wrong. I know because I studied the facts given to me by professionals who study the subject.
I think you are right to raise this issue and that coal-fired power stations would only be a good idea if the technology was there to prevent carbon emissions from the coal.
I agree with you Emma, the coal reserves in my opinion belong in the ground ready to be used by people in the next ice age otherwise what else will they use Trees...OH No that's write the government has rejected the idea of using Tree as a part of the countries carbon off set!!!!! Yet it is prepared to consider using coal burning power stations as part of the countries energy needs.
Gordon Brown.. you need to get your carbon off-set balanced..like your accounts books!
What are the alternatives? Are they cost-effective, wholly safe and constitutional? Your argument has no standing, except on the basis that it "might" contribute to global warming. There are many, many other constructs which may affect the climate and therefore, I see little reason why you've highlighted this issue.
Sorry you are mis-named. Since the scientific consensus on man made carbon being the cause of global warning is virtually unanimous Emma is completely rational and you on the other hand are a raving loony. Well done Emma!
i am a mother and grandmother and environmental campaigner and conservation worker for over 35 yrs. Unlike you i cant findthe words to discribe my frustration and gross dissapiontment in our currant PM Gordon Brown
An excellent summing up of where the government's policy should be directed - reducing pollution, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and eliminating fuel poverty. ONLY if carbon capture is incorporated from the outset should a coal fired power station be allowed to be built. ENERGY CONSERVATION could reduce the need for new power stations - reduce the pollution - and reduce fuel poverty. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY - WE CAN DO IT NOW
mmm i dont really think its to much to be worrying about and personnally dont thing there is any type of climate disaster going on as there is not enough hard evidence to back it up. fair enough the caps are melting, but its not a first. it a cycle the world takes every couple of thousand years. but not everyone is going to agree with me. it all depend if you prefere things rambed down your troath or not.
escaltctrldel 3 years ago
FANTASTIC question friend.
It's ridiculous. The UK has enough wind potential to power itself many times over. It also has significant hydroelectric and tidal energy as well as some solar energy.
Yet the UK is still stuck in the stone age, with less than 5% of its energy coming from renewables. Norway generates nearly 45% of its energy from renewables. Other countries which generate more from renewables include, sweden, canada, france, italy, germany, australia, denmark, and even the US!
janebusby 3 years ago
It really makes you wonder who they're listening to? Not the public, and definitely not the science! Coal is not part of a solution on climate change!
dutchtequila 3 years ago
It really makes you wonder who their listening to? Not the public, and definitely not the science! Coal is not part of a solution on climate change!
dutchtequila 3 years ago
Outstanding question!!!! and one that NEEDS to be answered!!
penelope128 3 years ago
Emma's question, particularly the last point, is highly pertinent. There are no incentives for the public or industry to decrease energy usage by adopting appropriate methods and/or technologies. There's no incentive even for householders to replace old, inefficient gas boilers, or not to buy fashionable, but highly wasteful, open-fronted domestic gas fires, and those sinful patio heaters!
hebbington 3 years ago
An excellent question - let's hope he is listening and serious about making the right decisions.
Aeolicdialect 3 years ago
Excellent question Emma. Please respond to this question, Prime Minister Brown. Tell us why we cannot divert funds from traditional technologies to re-train our workforce and implement new strategies for cleaner sources of energy: a simple strategy, for example, would be to build new homes WITH solar panels in situ; this would bring down the cost of panels for homeowners who want to purchase them but find the current costs prohibitive.
mommacwtch 3 years ago
An excellent question, Emma. Mr Brown, please pay attention to Emma's video and cancel any further consideration of plans for coal-fired power stations. There have to be other ways. pamela
19culdee 3 years ago
Good question. Let's hope Gordon answers it straight. Chris
krisatina99 3 years ago
Well done Emma.
However, dont think that it is only ONE coal fired power station that is planned, the government is planning to build many many more, what they call clean power stations. There is no such thing as a clean coal fired power station. It may be "clean" compared with the very dirty stations that are working now, but a clean station will still emit about half of the older ones.
tonyrobin 3 years ago
Well done Emma
Your generation need to take more interest in this subject - very soon you will be the decision makers. Global warming can be properly researched by visiting the IPCC website. Ignore the sceptics and their unsubstantiated opinions - they're wrong. I know because I studied the facts given to me by professionals who study the subject.
kjrn62 3 years ago
Emma
I think you are right to raise this issue and that coal-fired power stations would only be a good idea if the technology was there to prevent carbon emissions from the coal.
kayefarn 3 years ago
Hi Emma
I agree with you Emma, the coal reserves in my opinion belong in the ground ready to be used by people in the next ice age otherwise what else will they use Trees...OH No that's write the government has rejected the idea of using Tree as a part of the countries carbon off set!!!!! Yet it is prepared to consider using coal burning power stations as part of the countries energy needs.
Gordon Brown.. you need to get your carbon off-set balanced..like your accounts books!
AngmeringTreeWarden 3 years ago
She represents the generation that will have to live with this. Listen to her.
davidgled 3 years ago
What are the alternatives? Are they cost-effective, wholly safe and constitutional? Your argument has no standing, except on the basis that it "might" contribute to global warming. There are many, many other constructs which may affect the climate and therefore, I see little reason why you've highlighted this issue.
RationalResponsive 3 years ago
Sorry you are mis-named. Since the scientific consensus on man made carbon being the cause of global warning is virtually unanimous Emma is completely rational and you on the other hand are a raving loony. Well done Emma!
swanandprasad 3 years ago
Hi Emma, you are right with asking why not developing new efficient ways of producing energy. Hope your question will be answered.
angygoeswest 3 years ago
Excellent question Emma, well done.
eb98sas 3 years ago
Great question, great message. You have my support.
curlynewf 3 years ago
Your initiative is much appeciated Emma. Please accept this as my support to your concern.
archnajay 3 years ago
i hope you win!
mymate28 3 years ago 2
Good for you Emma. I hope the Prime Minister answers your question.
jaydee5151 3 years ago 2
Emma hats off to YOU
i am a mother and grandmother and environmental campaigner and conservation worker for over 35 yrs. Unlike you i cant findthe words to discribe my frustration and gross dissapiontment in our currant PM Gordon Brown
jnmerrick 3 years ago 2
Yes indeed. We should be building nuclear if anything...
simoneddieeddie 3 years ago
so true,so true,with u all the way.
tutankhamun1972 3 years ago 3
Good on you Emma!
BioRegional 3 years ago 2
Hi Emma, All too true.
Well done. Let's hope he gets the message we are all trying to send!!!
Rosipoos 3 years ago 2
I agree Emma, hope Mr Brown gets to answer your question on Youtube, be interesting to hear what he has to say and how he justifies it
humblehall 3 years ago 2
An excellent summing up of where the government's policy should be directed - reducing pollution, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and eliminating fuel poverty. ONLY if carbon capture is incorporated from the outset should a coal fired power station be allowed to be built. ENERGY CONSERVATION could reduce the need for new power stations - reduce the pollution - and reduce fuel poverty. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY - WE CAN DO IT NOW
ecolodgic 3 years ago 3
Couldn't agree more.
mpeel22 3 years ago 4
Good on you Emma. We need more than hot air.
babtridge3 3 years ago 4
Excellent question; something needs to be done about this. I hope Mr. Brown answers your question.
enroserie 3 years ago 6