User login
Navigation
Search
General election - questions for candidates
15 January, 2010 - 23:25
We (in Swindon) are thinking of sending some questions to all the candidates who want to be our next MP, about their views on climate change, and publicising the answers as widely as possible within the constituency in order to enable the voters who are concerned about climate change to make an informed choice at the ballot box.
My question is, what questions do you think we should ask?
Please post them here, so that other local groups can ask those questions of the candidates in their own constituencies if they so choose.
17 January, 2010 - 12:19
#2
Hi, the following would be my present shortlist; some alternative sources of ideas are at the foot.
It assumes that none of the candidates is sceptical of the value of the emissions cuts, and that all would ideally like an effective international treaty. Also it is intended for groups to ask, and so doesn't mention nuclear power and population which can be divisive.
1. Do you recognize that technology and a little gentle encouragement aren't sufficient in the face of climate change and other resource-related challenges, and that the government needs to institute a major fiscal transformation to curb fossil fuel use and unsustainable use of resources?
2. What will your party do to green the tax system, and if not, then how do you propose to institute a major green fiscal transformation, if at all?
3. How, in instituting such a major transformation, will you avoid exacerbating poverty and inequality?
4. There are now a record 1 billion hungry. In 2008 Alistair Darling said "it is staring us in the face" that a major cause of rising world hunger is the drive for biofuels that is pushing up food prices; this drive is also encouraging rainforest destruction and worsening emissions according to several major studies.. Yet the Government subsequently announced double ROCs for electricity from virgin vegetable oil, encouraging a wave of projects for such electricity. Will your party abolish ROCs for electricity from this source?
* If answer "we will develop a certification scheme for biofuels/ we will develop second generation biofuels" ask "how will that stop biofuels indirectly causing hunger, and indirectly causing deforestation and attendant emissions?".
5. Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, wrote last year that we need "complete decarbonisation" of our energy supply in OECD countries by 2030. Considering this, how can any investment now be justified in widening major roads, airport expansion, or new coal-fired power stations or incinerators, and which of these does your party accept should no longer be built?
* If answer "clean coal can deliver 90% emissions savings" ask "a major study of so-called 'clean coal' by Peter Viebahn has found that Carbon Capture and Storage can only acheive a 70-80% life-cycle emissions saving over dirty coal. Surely investment in new power stations should be concentrated in options like wind or concentrated solar power, which achieve very much closer to complete decarbonisation?"
6. What technologies, whether at local level or in national infrastructure, will you develop to help green the economy, and how will they be funded?
7. What will your party do to engage the public in the need for action against climate change and to curb wider resource use? Isn't there a need for prime ministerial broadcast addresses as during the last World War, or for compulsory workshops or advice sessions?
8. Government-supported post office closures and other contemporary developments or proposals, such as larger schools, consolidated playing fields and polyclinics, mean people have to travel further in their daily lives, meaning more traffic-related problems including emissions. What will you do to halt or reverse this trend?
9. Do you and your party support an end to offsetting being used to fulfil national or EU emissions targets?
Questions bubbling under: greening international aid and trade; stopping the growth of import-dependent biomass electricity (these are quite complex to explain and phrase questions on); greening the planning system; should we go further than the Committee on Climate Change recommends or EU has already committed in terms of emissions cuts (in question 5 I assumed the answer's yes.)
See also:
CCC Climate Emergency demands
Major NGOs' Common Cause manifesto
17 January, 2010 - 12:59
#3
there are people like me out here that are not convinced by man made climate change but do see climate change that some will resist to point of end of the world if you keep assuming we are all agreed to mmcc please try to use language that is not so much punch in face more like a welcoming hand.
me just being me can see many ways to reduce co2 but have extreme dificulties with how to patient things and use them. i think there are many people out there like me that if there was help we could use our ideas to save the planet so what help would you put in place to use this knowledge. (i have a way of making electicity with no fuel in and no by-products out).
17 January, 2010 - 19:24
#4
I'm pleased to see the questions forming up for people to ask candidates. This is being both practical and constructive. Probably not every constituancy will have active CCC membership. But there may be FOE or Greenpeace activists who can use the opportunity to ask M.P. candidates.
Swindon, well done, just concentrate on getting something 'out there' and we'll see where it takes us.
Once again I read fud saying this phrase 'save the planet' The Planet does not need saving! We maybe are her highest intelligence, yes! ? then use it! - your highest intelligence that is, and do something positive.
So many people are caught in the Matrix of the work ethic, we need more visionaries at the cutting edge for change.
17 January, 2010 - 20:02
#5
Raising the climate question with parliamentary candidates is extremely important. While it is something that is being raised by other organisations, one way or another, this is not grounds for us to stand on the sideline and say as they are doing it we can leave it to them. This is an opportunity to work with other organisations and alongside fellow activists.
We have discussed this in Derby with quite a few people now and the consensus is that the basic questions we should be asking emanate for the emergency demands, namely
- A million Green jobs - by the end of 2010, through a GREEN ENERGY REVOLUTION with massive investment in renewable energy, insulation programs, improved public transport etc...
- 10% cut in emissions by the end of 2010
- Ending domestic and short-haul flights - building a better train/coach network
- 55 mile an hour speed limit, ending the roads program, massive investment in public transport
- Phase out agrofuels and illuminate the demand for products associated with rainforest destruction
Now there may be scope for fine tuning, and there has been discussion elsewhere, and please come back here and add your thoughts.
All this should be accompanied for some sort of hustings.
.
17 January, 2010 - 22:38
#6
The "Phase out agrofuels" demand isn't in that Early Day Motion. Therefore if you are promoting the Climate Emergency demands via Early Day Motions you should also be promoting EDM 230 WORLD HUNGER AND BIOFUELS.
18 January, 2010 - 12:51
#7
Can you ask them to introduce further incentives rather than punishments on green issues? People are more likely to change their outlook if they see green issues as a postive thing that will save them money rather than a negative thing that will cost them money. It is all about getting people in the habbit of thinking green, helping save them money will do this!
19 January, 2010 - 01:22
#8
I am a little wary of the approach which keeps saying we should be trying to ‘sell’ the virtues of climate change. I think that this is one of the reasons that Greens and environmentalists have hit buffers.
Incidentally a lot of work has been done on this in the WWF (around Tom Crompton) and also be the charity COIN. Try this site http://www.identitycampaigning.org/what-is-identity-campaigning/
Also have a look at the WWF weathercocks and signposts publication http://www.wwf.org.uk/research_centre/research_centre_results.cfm?uNewsID=2224 This document is very good because it suggest how the environmental message has been oversold and also that there is empirical evidence that the stairway theory (i.e. one step leads to another) does not work. Obviously it works for some, but also perhaps not for many.
Yes we need to move beyond the scientists and perhaps beyond the impending doom merchants but lets not over-focus on adveertising and upon the need to sell positives. Did one sell the threat of the Nazis?
19 January, 2010 - 02:30
#9
Thanks all for this useful question and useful replies. I have also made a commitment to visit the parliamentary candidates in my constituency this spring. My approach is slightly different - my aim is try to raise the level of debate, the prize not my vote, but my participation at all. Anyway, my pitch is below, i'd appreciate any thoughts or feedback you may have to offer.
The overall message is that if providing realistic and measurable actions to tackle climate change within the next parliament aren't front and centre, the politicians wont simply lose my vote - I won't bother to vote at all, better to stand on the runway stopping the planes...
1. The Moral Imperative. It sits on our shoulders. We are not the only ones who emit greenhouse gases, but our lifestyles are so far from sustainable its a joke. It is our moral imperative to take responsibility, change our behaviour and make it possible for others to do the same.
2. The Scientific Imperative. It has been widely accepted that the ‘upper safety limit’ of atmospheric CO2 is 350 ppm (400ppmCO2e though the conversion is apparently approximate) in order to limit global average temperature rise to 2 degrees C over 1990 levels (1.2 degrees over today’s temperatures) by 2050 (we are currently pushing 387 ppm according to http://co2now.org/). This target is controversial only in that it may be nowhere near enough soon enough. (Numbers need checking, and references?)
In order to achieve this, the annual increase in CO2 needs to be halted in the next 5 to 10 years - so we have to act right now.
3. Actually achieving anything? The only policy that means anything at this point is targets for CO2 reductions. The debate about all the different mechanisms is notable only for the total lack of binding targets. Nothing else really matters (and not to mention is confusing for those politicians, they need things kept simple,poor dears...). Simply, how much can you cut, and how soon?
[I'm as opinionated as everyone about the different mechanisms on offer, but i feel that at this point the details are much less important than just making sure the debate is had, as loudly as possible, over and over...]
4. People first. Even a 2 degree average rise will lead to regional temperature rises of up to 4 degrees, massively increased frequencies of extreme weather events, conflict over natural resources and environmental refugees. These problems also will come to sit at our door – because we are rich, and because if we ignore them we are not human.
If the actions of our politicians on climate change do not allow for more equitable wealth distibution between the minority and majority worlds, we condemn ourselves to live in a fortress, surrounded by guns and ignoring the plight of the rest of our species (anyone who thinks that this scenario hasn't been carefully thought through by our armed forces is naive...). Our response must be grounded in humanity.
5. Where's the money? Make banks responsible for how they act. The actions of the world in response to the credit crunch illustate that banks are an essential mechanism in the modern world. Politicians say they provide a vital service for the country and its people. But as far as the banks themselves are concerned, their sole responsibility is to return dividends to their shareholders.
Not only is this contradiction sickening, not only does it make a fool out of every politican who tries to pretend they've got a handle on the investment banks which brought our economy to its knees. One very simple change could turn the power of the financial system towards actually dealing with the climate change problem - put a simple clause of social obligation at the heart of every bank's governing document. For the good of all the people, not just some of them; a simple redefinition of banks as social enterprises suddenly makes them an asset where before they are a liability.
Comments and feedback positively encouraged - i need it! If i can get this right, i'll start asking friends and family to do the same, as much face time as possible, with as simple a message as possible. Its the oldest trick in the book....
21 January, 2010 - 11:50
#10
Further to my list posted above, this assumed that the candidates were not sceptical of the value of emissions cuts. However consider the following from from an article in Tuesday's Independent:
Tim Montgomerie, editor of ConservativeHome... warned that many prominent Tories doubted the science of man-made global warming and many more middle-of-the-road pragmatists worried about the costs of pursuing "mitigation" policies. They were concerned about rising energy bills in Western countries and feared that economic growth in India and China would not reverse trends in climate that are well under way.
The latter sentiment is not confined to the Conservatives, e.g. it was shared by Tony Blair and Frank Dobson although Dobson signed the Climate Change Bill EDM after expressing such sentiment (to a FoE-organized meeting).
So I suggest question 1. becomes, relegating down all the others:
1. Do you believe it is still worth having a crack at avoiding or limiting dangerous climate change if it will involve doing some unpopular things?
21 January, 2010 - 12:09
#11
What do you say if they reply "no its a waste of time effort and money"?
21 January, 2010 - 12:38
#12
I don't wish to prescribe on that one, but if it was because of the latter-mentioned reasons in my last comment then I would personally ask:
"We didn't win World War II with that attitude and it involved much bigger self-sacrifices, so why are you giving up on this one so easily?"
If it was because the candidate was sceptical of the scientific mainstream, then that depends why and that's a whole subject of its own which I don't propose to reopen here.
22 January, 2010 - 18:11
#13
I think this is a useful discussion to have. There needs to be a distinction between questions to ask in general hustings etc. where only one question is likely to be possible (main purpose, I think, to show politicians people care about climate change and to inject a sense of urgency into discussion of the issue) and those for occasions where a more detailed discussion of climate policies is possible.
I'd suggest that for the former something like this might be suitable:
"Are you aware that the most up-to-date climate science suggest that if global carbon emissions don't peak by 2015 we face [can someone supply me with suitable alarming fact to insert here?] Firstly, do you agree that for the sake of the next generation, climate change must be the number one priority for the next government? Secondly, do you agree that immediate action is necessary, for example paying for investment in renewable energy and public transport by taxing highly polluting activities?"
Any comments on this? I think it is important to set the context first in terms of the science before asking a question.
23 January, 2010 - 07:22
#14
In practical terms, certain things need to get done before individuals feel part of the climate reduction program. So here are my thoughts.
1. The law should be changed to allow villages and small towns, say upto 10,000 residents, to create, and sell their own electricity to the community. This could be generated by what ever means, wind, solar, geo-thermal, biomass. This micro-generation would be owned and run by the people, for the people. Any surplus could be sold to the national grid. I know of 1 or 2 small communities in Germany that do this. Now that Vesta has closed on the i.o.w. ( Wind Turbines) this would create a great deal of local suppliers and new employment. Great competition for E.ON and others to be more efficient and move away from coal.
2. The Patent Office records should be checked, for any patents that block new ideas, and or solutions held by oil, gas, coal or sceptics. There are so many ideas still to be used, worldwide.
3. One way to get countries willingly to make changes, because there is money in it for them, is on my Blog at Climate
4. Another idea is "Bio Char" you could see what is available and how it works at Bio Char
Time to get practical, we must show the politicians what has to be done and what we want. If you could pass on this posting to others, it might just reach the people that care.
Drachsi
24 January, 2010 - 22:46
#15
Thank you, the COIN and WWF articles are essential reading for those of us interested in changing the public's perception and behaviors.
Jumping to your statement "Did one sell the threat of the Nazis"? No they didn't but the politicians and the media made it very clear that the threat was real and that they fully supported drastic action.
The public just don't see or hear that level of urgency from our politicians today about the climate, they make tepid warnings, and even these are considered scaremongering by some Tory MPs. The politicians are waiting for a groundswell of public opinion forming before they will react. Or they are waiting for the magic bullet which will deliver a carbon-free economy - without any inconvienience to the public - before telling the public just how bad things are, and will get.
But this will not happen whilst the public values materialism (and their God-given right of choice and freedom) over environmentalism because for years the Governments have fully supported this value to drive the economy and increase GDP.
9 February, 2010 - 14:32
#16
NEWS POLITICS AND THE PEOPLE The UN was investigating President Putin for monopolising the media in the run up to Russian elections. We seem to have the same problem in this country with the people being given 3 "Main" parties to choose from through national media. We are the people; we should stand united for our rights, as fathers, mothers brothers and sisters, for this is our country, and our future, which has and will be formed by the input of the masses. The Politicians who are in the main running for the next general election, once again do not represent the people of the UK, in reality they seem to represent banks, large businesses and themselves, with accountability and duty of care taking a back seat. Let’s face it, the only time you see their face is when they want your signature. It would seem that councils and MPs are only interested in taking more and more of your hard earned money, giving little or nothing in return. I believe in the people and their dreams, but in truth, with all of these main party politicians, I see no real duty of care, no forward planning for the growth of our Nation, moreover I see these main politicians and their self inclusive associates milking everyone. Let us remember, and not forget that they make up the rules for themselves, not for you or me, this is one of the main problems with many old and new laws acting as sources for their coffers rather than justice for the people. How does one finish a statement like this? Seems best to say "We the People". Love people and I tire of seeing the vast majority, for many generations, paying for the lushness and high class lifestyles of the minority. I would like to represent the people, but not by joining the houses of Parliament and their self inclusive outdated practices. These days the trouble with being a politician is that you have to join a body that, by the very nature of the beast, as we are increasingly seeing, is a dishonourable practice, with the benefit of the people not being at the centre of its house. Sure there’s a few MPs and councilors who want to represent the people and probably have their heart in the right place, but when push comes to shove, nothing really changes as they are part of a system that is inherently flawed due to its self righteous stance and distance from the real people, the one’s they are supposed to serve in the real world.. It is not so hard for us to see what is really going on. Regarding their self imposed expenses claims, it seems that very few are being sacked or prosecuted for fraud or embezzlement of your money, but if it was you who had done this, you would probably be sent to prison sooner rather than later. Let us also remember that the Politicians made up these rules and regulations for their expenses claims. As they do so often with so many of their rulings, they never consult the population. For far too long, these elitists who call themselves honourable have favoured no one but themselves, sacrificing many for the few. When the elitist Monarchy were over thrown, Oliver Cromwell talked the people up, but not for revolution, only rebellion, with him and his cohorts forming another select elitist group/s, with the people still in the background. The people should be put in the foreground as it is their time and labour that creates the economy. Think about it, every pound you spend, the government takes 17.5 pence as tax, then you’ve got your wages, the amount taken depends on what you earn, but either way, what do the masses get for their law enforced payments? There seems to be no end to the greed of MPs and Councilors, and no end in sight for these constant, “Make it up as they go” revenue collections. Road Tax, petrol tax, licences, parking regulations, new parking charges. For several years councils have charged people to park outside of their own houses, on average this costs £99 for 12 months In Camden 37,000 permits were issued to fill 22,500 spaces, this seems ludicrous and very irregular. Even though this is the case let’s do the maths on that one 99 X 37,000 = £3663000 per year The people are told that the charges pay for the administration of the parking regulators, yet when we look at the revenues they raise from the vehicle tow trucks plus the additional costs of getting your vehicle out of their compounds, these costs in themselves would pay for administration. This is an excellent example of how councils and politicians are just slapping you in the face with more and more demands, and then there’s that Poll Tax, or is it community charge, what have you seen done for the communities with these revenues, another hospital cut back, increasing fares, cuts in services, bad housing, the closing of youth facilities the list is quite long. When one stops to think about the movement of money, think how much money is going out of your pockets and into theirs . We are talking billions. We ran a check on one topic, though there were many that would also yield substantial amounts raised (taken) by councils and politicians, we checked parking fines in Camden for the year 2003/2004 Number of Penalty Charge Notices Issued by London Borough of Camden 467,683 Remember we are only looking at one year of parking fines nothing else The cost of a parking ticket fine is £60; let’s do the maths on that one 60 X 467,683 = £28060980 The population of Camden at this time was roughly 210,000 If we divide these revenues between the residents it works out at £28060980 Divided by 210,000 = £133.62p each household. Though this may not be a lot per household if the amount was spent within the community, which would be enough for people to forgo their resident permit payment and leave quite a substantial amount that could be used to bring benefit to the community. As you will see, this is just one example of the vast amount of your money being taken. If you think that we need a new and honest representation of the people you will not find it in the Houses of Parliament nor within the House of Lords, it is more likely you will find it with your friends, family and the people of the United Kingdom., for it is the people who make it all work. You must never forget this and you should make sure that the MPs and Councillors don’t forget their undertaking to you the people. Unite for what is right, your rights.
my question is "how would you lower co2 emmissons while not costing people money for no benifit (i mean to much money for no return)"
i think like letting people see energy saving bulbs save them money either by adverts or tv shows like corronations street or eastenders saying "the gas bill arrived and we have saved £??? just by turning down our heating or something like that.
give out things like supplying extentions that turn off devices - or remote plugs that turn on and off plugs behind machines
show adverts that show differance between 20'c on thermonitor and 19'c and how much money it saves
for business they can use movement sensors instead or leaving lights on over night
like leeds offer a service where if you dont want a item you can put it on service so someone else can use it and if you want a item you can use it but you gain credits from what you put on and you can use them to take something off the site. this stops things going to landfill, less things are made so less co2
vehicals can have filters in there bodywork so as the vehical moves the air flows through the filters and clean the air so we can clean as we drive, if it is built into the body work it would not affect the airodinamics or the vehicals
if you want more ideas just ask!