BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Will UN deal to curb climate change work?

10:37 UK time, Saturday, 11 December 2010

Delegates from 190 nations have reached a deal to curb climate change after UN talks in Cancun.

Nations endorsed compromise texts drawn up by the Mexican hosts, despite strong objections from Bolivia.

A fund will be set up to protect poor nations against climate impacts and assist them with low-carbon development.

What do you make of the deal? Will it make a difference? Will the countries who have agreed to the pledge, stick to it?

This debate has now been closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 6

  • Comment number 1.

    Only a technical society will preserve our climate. Nations like China abuse the atmosphers with out-dated industry. America must initiate tech sector exports to Asia. This move should allow the planet to moderate in a safe and useful way.

  • Comment number 2.

    Stopping pollution is a good thing, but climate change is coming whatever we do.

  • Comment number 3.

    NO - there is no real will, just ££££.

  • Comment number 4.

    No it won't work so lets hope the scientists are wrong about climate change.

  • Comment number 5.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 6.

    From what I can gather they have agreed to think about it.

    Lets face it you could not get so many differing nations to agree on the colour of grass! (brown will be the future colour).

    In the imortal words of Fraser from Dads Army

    "Were all DOOMED, Doomed I tell you!".

  • Comment number 7.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 8.

    Junk Science - climate change is a natural phenomena - cannot be stopped, altered or amended. We are at the mercy of the Sun always have been always will be. Try substituting "Climate change" with "Continental Drift" to see how ridiculous this concept is

    "If we stop building houses we can stop continental drift!"...maybe not

    The elephant in the room is population- but gutless politicians are too scared to mention it because the Nazis had the same idea through eugenics.

    The Global warming scare story is dying cold death - must try harder next time

  • Comment number 9.

    Will UN deal to curb climate change work? No. Nothing the UN does works, the UN is incompetent.

  • Comment number 10.

    If our 'leader' are really concerned about climate change, do they give any consideration to the TONS of Carbon Dioxide that all their jet-setting to Climate Change meetings puts into the atmosphere?

    Am I the only one who can see the irony?

  • Comment number 11.

    It won't work because it's not clear if our emissions are causing climate change.

  • Comment number 12.

    There was a recent article/post titled "Earth's Climate History." It was a chart and I clicked it, very interested in some possible insight. Unfortunately it was the same old rhetoric about Carbon Dioxide levels. I think we all understand that by now, so I was naturally disappointed. Then I became bothered. Maybe it is a cash cow situation, perhaps it is scared people hoping to prevent their sky from falling. Whatever it is, I am appalled that it furthers poor journalism as well as poor taste.
    A chart of "Earth's Climate History" covered a mere 800,000 years.
    And, somehow, Climate History became CO2 levels.

    How is this even postable? I can't help but think that it is scare tactics with regards to climate. Climate is a very complex thing that is not subject to a couple centuries. We are blowing our influence way out of proportion and seem to be losing common sense along with it.

    I hope people can recognize these absurd approaches for what they are, but I also hope they can recognize good ones when they see them. BBC, you're not doing a wonderful job of providing both sides, nor any convincing facts on either.

    Please try to be better.

  • Comment number 13.

    Climate change is a natural cycle. Politicians, various left wing bodies and businesses want to exploit the cash cow by scaring the people about rising sea levels and polar bears stranded on little ice cubes.

    --------------
    There is substantial ,indeed overwhelming, scientific agreement on the presence of man made global warming.

    Even if there wasn't moving away from a carbon based fuel system will save countless millions of lives currently lost to respiratory and related disease and probably save numerous animal species which are being wiped out from deforestation.

    So even if you think it's all a conspiracy of nasty left wing organisations like for example the Royal Society (a right hot bed of lefties) the we still benefit irrespective of the truth of the case.

    So what precisely is your problem with these measures?

    It's a bit like those who say passive smoking doesn't hurt anyone, clearly the absence of smoke filled rooms is going to make peoples lives more pleasant even if you ignore the fact that it kills 600,000 people a year.

  • Comment number 14.

    A deal to curb climate change??? What a bunch of wallies. Climate change is a natural and cyclic event. Nothing this bunch of free-loaders do will make the slightest difference. In stead of trying to curb it we should be discussing how we will cope with it.

  • Comment number 15.

    These climate change scientists and their followers, the warmists, are going to feel so stupid in a few years time when we all realise that it's all just been a natural warming cycle. Of course we will all then be asking for our carbon taxes back won't we? Or will they find another way to try to re-distribute wealth around the world?

  • Comment number 16.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 17.

    Yet another costly conference with yet another headline "Deal agreed to curb climate change", again. Its a bit like King Canute holding a series of international meetings on trying to control the tide. And he got his feet wet - surprise !!! So let the rhetoric flow, again, the HYS contributors fall out, again, the HYS holier than thou lecture the rest of us, again. I just hope it turns out to be the same 'ole same 'ole, that way I'll be part of the vast global majority who have no intention or compulsion to change their lifestyle. I'm more interested in adapting to the constant of "climate change" rather than trying to stop the inevitable. Ask King Canute.

  • Comment number 18.

    "
    14. At 12:56pm on 11 Dec 2010, John Palmer wrote:

    A deal to curb climate change??? What a bunch of wallies. Climate change is a natural and cyclic event. Nothing this bunch of free-loaders do will make the slightest difference. In stead of trying to curb it we should be discussing how we will cope with it.
    "

    Say's John, who's Phd is in?

  • Comment number 19.

    These events have become a grandstand for mealy-mouthed polticians and NGO's posing as planet savers. Targets are no way to go, they can't be measures or verified and there are too many loopholes. The anwwer is technology, engineering solutions that can be shown to be more sustainable than the products they supercede. You can bet your life whatever was agreed at Cancun won't stand up to inspection and that the money turns out to be a mirage.

  • Comment number 20.

    It would be interesting to see a "Wikileaks" type revelation as to what gov'ts ,scientific & other bodies REALLY think or believe about MMCC.

  • Comment number 21.

    Global Warming is the biggest pseudo-scientific con in history. This planet goes through climate cycles...you gullible fools.
    in light
    supajohnny

  • Comment number 22.

    We are a bunch of monkeys sitting on a rock that revolves a huge bright orange nuclear reactor, to think we have any control over how hot this thing decides it is going to be really shows up the stupidity of man kind.

  • Comment number 23.

    Given that climate change, whilst quite real, is a natural and cyclical phenomenon over which human beings have only the tiniest illusion of control, none of these meetings or summits can 'curb' it, only mitigate against its effects (which in the case of this country at least appear to include a return to colder winters) as our forebears were forced to and with considerably less technology and home comforts than we have access to.

    That doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop looking for ways to reduce our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels, use energy more efficiently, reduce pollution and the amount of precious resources we waste, in short use our scientific know-how to find ways to ensure that our kids and their kids are able to enjoy the same standards of living as we do. To me that involves finding a happy medium somewhere between aggressive, acquisitive consumer capitalism and flying to and from New York in a day for a 'conference', and those who'd have us back in hair shirts, living in caves or mud huts and living on roots and berries. In the 80s it was discovered that certain products were destroying the ozone layer and causing acid rain; however we didn't have to give up our fridges, aerosols and Styrofoam because scientists devised alternatives that worked just as well.

    Finally, if people (the media included) were even a fraction as healthily skeptical of so-called 'obesity research' (the manipulation of public opinion into believing exaggerated worst-case scenarioes and 'risk factors' equal some sort of major social threat) as they are of some of the more outlandish and hysterical claims of the MMCC lobby, public opinion would have rejected wasteful, illiberal 'solutions' such as the National Child Measuring Program, National Obesity Register, and Change4Life campaign as needless, wasteful attacks on productive law-abiding citizens at a time when other fiscal priorities are infinitely more pressing.

  • Comment number 24.

    It won't make one iota of difference.

    The Earth is powerful and is more than capable of looking after itself; it will continue to change no matter what we do. We, however, are insignificant and eventually we'll all die out, BUT the Earth will be fine. There will probably be a period of regeneration and we'll be replaced by something else.

    Doesn't matter how many times the politicians go off on a jolly to Kyoto or Cancun or wherever, there's nothing much we can do about it.

    The climate has been changing for billions of years, if it hadn't changed humans would never have existed, but when our time is up we'll have to go.

  • Comment number 25.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 26.

    18. At 1:05pm on 11 Dec 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:
    "
    14. At 12:56pm on 11 Dec 2010, John Palmer wrote:

    A deal to curb climate change??? What a bunch of wallies. Climate change is a natural and cyclic event. Nothing this bunch of free-loaders do will make the slightest difference. In stead of trying to curb it we should be discussing how we will cope with it.
    "

    Say's John, who's Phd is in?

    ==============================================

    Logic & Common Sense ?

  • Comment number 27.

    While it is important to cut our reliance on fossil fuels to help create a cleaner environment the biggest setback to doing this are the environmentalist themselves who have proven time and time again that the environment in not there main objective, anti-capitalism is. They persistently campaign against cleaner alternative energy technologies such as Nuclear, Hydro electric and wind turbine. They criticize aeroplane manufactures for producing fuel efficient aircraft as they say it does not stop people wanting to travel, another objective they place before the environment Isolationist Nationalism. They environmentalist movement are little more than another arm of the 'Third Position' anti-capitalist movement with also consist of Neo-Nazis, white Supremacist, Isolationist communists and Islamic Extremists who wish to create a New World Order.

  • Comment number 28.

    Will UN deal to curb climate change work?

    Nope, because there are to many climate-change deniers in the world, most of them are oil barons who stand to lose profit from this.

    They would rather destroy the planet than lose face and profit.

  • Comment number 29.

    18. At 1:05pm on 11 Dec 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    "
    14. At 12:56pm on 11 Dec 2010, John Palmer wrote:

    A deal to curb climate change??? What a bunch of wallies. Climate change is a natural and cyclic event. Nothing this bunch of free-loaders do will make the slightest difference. In stead of trying to curb it we should be discussing how we will cope with it.
    "

    Say's John, who's Phd is in?

    _____________________________________

    Agreed, I think that's why Al Gore called it the inconveniant truth!

  • Comment number 30.

    9. At 12:45pm on 11 Dec 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    Will UN deal to curb climate change work? No. Nothing the UN does works, the UN is incompetent.

    ___________________________________

    The UN is a mystical being, set up to keep certain countries in line with other bigger countries. A bit like the former British Empire, but at least they never pretended to be anything different.

  • Comment number 31.

    As no mechanism has been drawn up to get the deal in motion, I fail to see how it can work (if indeed we have any effect upon the climate, and if we do, I think it is far too late).

  • Comment number 32.

    Climate Change ... it's a natural occurence. It's happened throughout history, it's a natural cycle.

    But for the eco-fascists and career politicians - When it's too hot ... it's Global Warming, when it's too cold (like now), it's Climate Change, and guess what when the weather is the same for a period of time .. well it's a Climate Bore and another excuse for a jolly somewhere warm!!!

    The current expensive junket held in Cancun is a nonsense. All the overpaid politico's using their jet airplanes to fly in ... and spew out umpteen more kilo's of Carbon into the atmosphere is somewhat ironic ... don't you think ?

  • Comment number 33.


    Although it is obvious that man made emissions must be affecting the atmosphere, and therefore the climate, the extent of these effects must be open to question.

    The enormous amount of tax now Being paid by individuals and companies alike to somehow "pay" for their emissions (Carbon tax, car emissions tax, SOX, NOX and other emission taxes) will certainly ensure that we will ALWAYS be assured that we are guilty, and must continue to pay.

    We must continue to ask questions such as the proportion of blame attributable to man, and that attributable to nature.

    We must question the excessive claims made about the consequences of our actions; for example the claims of massive increase in sea level which are currently terrifying residents of nations such as Kiribati in the Central Pacific - Where is all that water going to come from?

    A massive amount of polar ice is floating sheet ice! have you ever noticed what happens to the level of water in your glass when the ice melts? Do you remember the ratio of the volume of a submerged iceberg to that of the exposed peak? Do you also recall that ice occupies more volume in water than the water it is composed of? Penny beginning to drop?

    Two thirds of the Earths surface is water. Where on Earth is 6 feet of water multiplied by 2/3rds of the surface of the Earth actually going to come from?

    Anybody.......?

    Let's try to keep some level of reality attached to this particular cash cow, and stop scaring the life (sometimes literally) out of inhabitants of coral atolls.

  • Comment number 34.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 35.

    If climate change is such a catastrophic threat to us all as politicians, actors and pop stars keep telling us then here's an idea; we all have an individual carbon allowance, once it's used that's it. So say one flight per year, 100 gallons of petrol each, one computer per five years etc. Somehow I can't see the rich and famous going for this, they just want the rest of us to give up these things by being priced out of them.

  • Comment number 36.

    Wow, some common sense is being picked up by the majority for once....Well done and welcome into the light!!

    The fiction factory known as "Man Made Climate Change" has raised another burden on tax payers to continue support for a multi billion dollar industry whilst keeping third world contries in check.

    Mobsix. You make sense,good on you!!

  • Comment number 37.

    steve:

    "There is substantial ,indeed overwhelming, scientific agreement on the presence of man made global warming.

    Even if there wasn't moving away from a carbon based fuel system will save countless millions of lives currently lost to respiratory and related disease and probably save numerous animal species which are being wiped out from deforestation."

    ----

    Sentence one is true but irrelevant. Sentence two is deeply wrong, while a billion and a half still do not have electricity.

    The question is not whether man's CO2 emissions are warming the planet - the greenhouse effect says that they are. The question is whether such warming is ever going to be dangerous. There is strong scientific evidence for the greenhouse effect. There is no clear-cut evidence for the positive feedbacks from water vapour and clouds that are absolutely key to the idea of dangerous warming. The IPCC only has one and a half pages on feedbacks out of a thousand, though they are the crucial step in the chain of reasoning that leads to talk of a crisis. Steve McIntyre, the famous Canadian climate blogger, has suggested 300 pages on this issue would be more appropriate. But if the IPCC did this they would be drawing attention to the weakest point in the argument for dangerous global warming. I fear they weren't set up to do such a thing.

    The Royal Society, though, to its credit, recently revised its statement on climate change because of complaints from various fellows that it had previously been inaccurate and simplistic. The new statement makes clear the importance of the feedbacks issue and is honest about the fact that little is known about cloud feedbacks. This is totally foundational. What the RS doesn't talk about is the fact that four billion years have gone by while the earth has had an ocean and during that time the average temperature has gone up and down in a narrow range of 20 degrees Kelvin out of about 280 deg K. This despite major differences in the 'inputs' - for instance the early sun was about 30% less bright than it is today. Yet the earth's thermostat worked then - as it surely will in the future, as our CO2 makes a energy perturbation of about 2% (which is about the most it could do).

    None of this would matter if your optimism about carbon reduction was justified. But all our measures at the moment hit the poorest with devastating consequences. Biofuels have raised food prices to a level that must have caused millions of deaths of those on the bottom of the pile. And all the carbon control schemes now are bound to make electricity much more expensive. There's enough fuel poverty in the UK. But for those who don't have electricity at all this is a death sentence, as they burn wood in huts and their children succumb in their millions to the very respiratory diseases you mention.

    It's all very well talking about the technology of the future. What the poorest billion need now is the cheapest possible food and energy, no strings attached. Anything we do to make these things more expensive is a death sentence for them. So cost free Cancun ain't. And as Dambisa Moyo, the African economist, has shown, massive aid transfers to governments are proven over sixty five years not to reach the poor but to line the pockets and strengthen the position of tyrants. This is another of the debates we are not being allowed to have as the elite meet to decide the future of us all.

    Except that the wheels are clearly coming off the bandwagon. There's very little binding this year, just like last. We all live to fight another day.

  • Comment number 38.

    Hilarious!

    The UK sent 46 freeloaders burning up thousands of gallons jet fuel and consuming 50% of the world's lobster population to achieve a so-called agreement which everyone will ignore.

    Jobs for the boys whilst we suffer austerity measures!

  • Comment number 39.

    Doesn't your answer rest in this one statement: "Draft documents say deeper cuts in carbon emissions are needed, but do not establish a mechanism for achieving the pledges countries have made."
    The deal as BBC Environment Correspondent, Richard Black says the meeting did not achieve "the comprehensive, all-encompassing deal that many activists and governments wanted."
    I don't know from whence UK Prime Minister David Cameron would get the idea that: "Now the world must deliver on its promises." To some countries a promise is a promise; to other countries it's called - let's wait and see what our competitors do.
    A new Adaptation Committee will support countries "as they establish climate protection plans" should read "when and if" they establish climate protection plans.
    None of the measures reached will be legally binding.
    Here is the big bug-bear: "Bolivia found faults...with the way the texts were constructed through private conversations between small groups of countries." This also happened at Copenhagen. The question is why. I guess developed countries do not trust the literacy of underdeveloped or developing countries to come up with suitable wording.
    Bolivia criticized the draft as too weak and accused other nations of trying to isolate the leftist-led nation at a crunch conference in Mexico.
    Climate Negotiator, Pablo Solon: "Bolivia isn't ready to sign up to a document which means a rise in temperature which will put more humans in a near-death situation. These changes would allow arise of more than four degrees Celsius."
    Solon earlier told journalists that the draft proposal did not take into account decisions of indigenous and peasant movements that have met in the Andean nation.
    Solon: "We have observed a dirty war to try to isolate and corner Bolivia...We believe that the United States has had a great influence as this text is basically the Copenhagen agreement which the United States promoted."
    Bolivian President, Evo Morales says that climate change was tantamount to "genocide" and proposing that wealthy nations give to the poor as much as they spend on their militaries."
    Now that's a good idea!
    Developing countries can now see new money on the table - which they may or may not get, you know like Haiti where the people are still living in tent cities and dying of cholera.
    Russia and Japan (in one of those closed sessions) achieved wording that leaves them a possible route to escape extension of the Kyoto Protocol's legally binding emission cuts, while strongly implying that the protocol has an effective future.
    The Green Climate Fund will initially use the World Bank as a trustee - as the US, EU and Japan had demanded. Developing countries will have their emission-curbing measures subjected to international verification only when they are funded by Western money - a formulation that seemed to satisfy both China, which had concerns on such verification procedures, and the US, which had DEMANDED them, but where is the equivalent statement that would see the United States and China internationally verified?
    Will the deal work?
    No.
    What do you make of the deal?
    Same-old, same-old.
    Will the countries who have agreed to the pledge, stick to it?
    Not unless their competitive countries do, and even then there is at least one country rather prone to cheat.


  • Comment number 40.

    Will UN deal to curb climate change work?

    Errrrrrrrrr..NO! The one stupendous elephant in the room - the human race! It has proved itself stupid, greedy & ignorant beyond comprehension!

    If people were that interested, why do so many need to ooze around in titanic 4x4 tanks, have the most humongous television, 23 laptops in the house???

    So everyone wants a car that will deliver 10000 mpg - errr hello? Did these cars magic into being? Folk seem to have conveniently forgotten, or probably not thought about the pollution generated in the manufacturing process!

    Oh yes, and don't forget about the mind blowing pollution caused by the species' constant wars! Fighting over a fairy story ie religion ????? Humans try to portray themselves as intelligent - NOPE!

    Oooops nearly forgot - everyone wants to fly all over the world - name me a large aircraft that is clean...still waiting?!

    Cancun is just another pointless freebie for a bunch of useless lying corrupt politicians to stuff their faces & wallets & achieve precisely naff-all!!!

  • Comment number 41.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 42.

    "UN 'deal' to curb climate change"?

    The tragedy is that politicans are so focussed on 'climate change' - they are brainwashed to ignore pollution and decimation of forests, clean water and sustainable agriculture in their own country.

    No doubt, there will be the usual rants that climate change is a myth. Fair enough. I'm not convinced either way. However, deforestation of ancient forests, (with unknown and potential medicine), for cattle farming is not progress for humanity?

    What is important, is focussed reduction in local; therefore reduced global pollution of air, water and food.

  • Comment number 43.

    These climate change scientists and their followers, the warmists, are going to feel so stupid in a few years time when we all realise that it's all just been a natural warming cycle. Of course we will all then be asking for our carbon taxes back won't we? Or will they find another way to try to re-distribute wealth around the world?

    --------------
    You are going to feel even more stupid and wet or thirsty depending on your location if they are right!

  • Comment number 44.

    I take it all these so called experts have taken into consideration the increase in the worlds population and the decrease in the rain forest.

    I thought not.

    Lets start by having an enforced reduction in the worlds population over the next 75 years, the old Chinese rule, only one child per couple.

    Oh, sorry. there are certain religons out there that ban that and certain races that would oppose it, in fact, flaunt it in the rest of the worlds face.

  • Comment number 45.

    While it is important to cut our reliance on fossil fuels to help create a cleaner environment the biggest setback to doing this are the environmentalist themselves who have proven time and time again that the environment in not there main objective, anti-capitalism is. They persistently campaign against cleaner alternative energy technologies such as Nuclear, Hydro electric and wind turbine. They criticize aeroplane manufactures for producing fuel efficient aircraft as they say it does not stop people wanting to travel, another objective they place before the environment Isolationist Nationalism. They environmentalist movement are little more than another arm of the 'Third Position' anti-capitalist movement with also consist of Neo-Nazis, white Supremacist, Isolationist communists and Islamic Extremists who wish to create a New World Order
    -----------
    There is a growing and respected section of the environmental movement who advocate,nuclear, hydroelectric and wind power. Based on science not philosophy.

  • Comment number 46.

    Oh dear! There's that phrase again: "... a fund to help developing countries". Which can only mean one thing - More taxation for the High Priests/Priestesses of Climate Change

    The bandwagon is set to grind on, (and on, and on) even though it now only has three wheels, and the ruling class will just keep getting fatter off the back of the taxpayers

  • Comment number 47.

    Of course it won't work. It won't work because many of the countries involved believe that they should be allowed to industrialise, and catch up with the west, before they pull back on emissions.

    The only way for this to work is to stop buying products made in China, India etc and reduce the drive to industrialise to that which can be sustained by their own economies . It wouldn't do our economies too much harm either. But I doubr there is any stomach for that amongst western consumers who want to buy cheap, and western companies who are all too happy to contract their production and customer contact overseas, even at the expense of creating millions of unemployed in the west.

    Be clear, it is not just the Chinese, Koreans, Taiwanese etc with thei dirty industry that cause this problem. Its the greed of our companies who want to shave costs to drive up profit, and are quite prepared to leave governments with a huge benefit bill as a result. It's also the goverments who sit back and watch this happen without realising the implications rather than proscribing or disincentiveising it.

    You want to reduce emissions? Put 100% import duty on goods and services coming into Europe and N America from outside. It won't work as well as it would have ten years ago, but it would reduce the problem.

  • Comment number 48.

    Agreed Steve. Already the evidence is out there that CO2 does not cause global warming, the bad science has been disproved, yet the mainstream media gives very little coverage to the many highly qualified scientists who have proved weather changes have nothing to do with manmade activity.

  • Comment number 49.

    190 nations, ...how many delegates..how many press/media bods in attendance...all will have flown there, on private jets etc, all will have flown home ..so that will have been good for the planet then..All this gobbledygook about "global warming and Climate change" is as I say, gobbledygook, it`s a myth, designed by governments to raise more taxes, to fund more junkets to holiday destinations for delegates and the press, to places like Cancun..Millions of years ago, there was an ice age, that lasted millions of years, and millions of years before that was a another ice-age that lasted millions of years, in a few million years there will be another ice-age, and so on and so forth ad in-finitum, `til the sun explodes in 30 million years..what are the polititians doing about that..if they start taxing us now..they might be able to stop it happening !!!!!!

  • Comment number 50.

    35. At 1:49pm on 11 Dec 2010, Rob wrote:
    If climate change is such a catastrophic threat to us all as politicians, actors and pop stars keep telling us then here's an idea; we all have an individual carbon allowance, once it's used that's it. So say one flight per year, 100 gallons of petrol each, one computer per five years etc. Somehow I can't see the rich and famous going for this, they just want the rest of us to give up these things by being priced out of them.

    =========================================================

    I would not go so far as to classify myself as either "Rich" or "Famous" but I easily exceed 700 gallons of fuel a year just for leisure purposes alone. (Sensible car & a couple of fast boys toys). I take on average four flights a year for leisure, comply with your suggested quota of one computer every five years but would vote out any government that imposed a carbon tax or similiar. Do I want this at your expense, or indeed "the rest of you" ? Absolutely not Rob. Work hard, earn money and live the best lifestyle you can afford and I wish you a better one than mine. And don't worry about the Green Brigade - I certainly dont - they manufacture "facts" to suit their own agenda of the day and so cannot be taken seriously. Forget the "Greens", come and join the "Happy Brigade".

  • Comment number 51.

    If I could have a free 2 week holiday every year or so in far flung places like Bali and Cancun working for the UN climate committee, I'd say anything to keep myself in a cushy little number of a job.

    However, until the UN and governments and religions clamp down on POPULATION CONTROL, I don't give a damn what pollution I or others make to this planet.

    Pollution goes hand in hand with population growth. If you cannot control one, you cannot control the other.

  • Comment number 52.

    Steve wrote:

    'There is substantial ,indeed overwhelming, scientific agreement on the presence of man made global warming.'

    No there isn't. Blaming the weather on man-made carbon dioxide is pure guesswork. If there was evidence there would not be any debate - much as the warmists try and supress those who do not agree with their theory.
    But let's say for the sake of argument that this bizarre theory is true. What society will we have to live in to make any real difference on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It is a trace gas and accounts for 0.038 per cent, of which ten per cent is man made. So if world emissions were at zero we could expect to reduce this figure to 0.034 per cent. Everyone wants to reduce pollution but they are trying to tax us for complete and utter nonsense.





  • Comment number 53.

    Given the bias of those attending such an event, and the recent history of distortions of "evidence", is there any reason to believe the CO2 concentration graph, or the statements that the planet IS warming.
    If there is any truth to this pseudo science, then why no outcry about the amount of H2O vapour in the atmosphere - some 30 times the CO2 concentration, and with about the same heat capacity per unit as carbon dioxide.

  • Comment number 54.

    I am reminded of the many years that there were repeated attempts to reduce the amount of fish being caught in the North Sea in order to allow the fish stocks to restore themselves. The scientists would do their research and make recommendations then the politicians would calculate self interest and what they could get away with. Then there would be a big conference and something was always agreed. When the measures were subsequently shown not to be enough, or not policed adequately the process to start the next round of "too little too late" would be commenced.
    Of course there were those calling the research suspect, the proposals destructive of a way of life etc etc.

    When was the last time you eat cod?
    More to the point when was the last time you SAW a cod let alone a fish mongers?

    I am 65 years old and wonder what sort of world will be available to my grand children now.

  • Comment number 55.

    A load of hot wind won't change anything.
    Curious how those who think we can really change it have the most to say, and waste the most resources saying it!
    While we should stop wasting resources and producing unnecessary CO2, more is being produced arguing about it than we could possibly save.
    What has really been done by all these talks???

  • Comment number 56.

    The hilarious thing is that these countries will have to prove that any damage they claim for was caused by global warming - which is impossible.

    The vast majority of us know that no claims will ever be made because global warming is ridiculously overhyped nonsense to initiate carbon trading .

  • Comment number 57.

    Climate change - or put another way - another reason to con more taxes out of the populations. There is no will to put a stop to climate change, only a will to screw the tax paying public out of more money. Its almost laughable.

  • Comment number 58.

    43. At 2:12pm on 11 Dec 2010, steve wrote:
    You are going to feel even more stupid and wet or thirsty depending on your location if they are right!

    Don't worry too much Steve - none of the predictions warmist scientists have made have ever come true. They have to make outrageous predictions to claim they are trying to save the world and get grants.

  • Comment number 59.

    Personally I'm concerned about tectonic plate movements. Can we sort out some large payments for countries that may end up in places with poor climates? It's about as logical as legislating and paying to stop climate changing.

  • Comment number 60.

    Climate Evolution, as it should be known, will continue as it has done for millions of years regardless of how much we destroy our way of life.
    By focusing on 'emissions' we are missing the real problems that face us, i.e. over-population, de-forestation, food supply, religious extremism and nuclear proliferation.
    Governments see 'climate change' as a way of generating 'green' taxes, creating green 'non-jobs' and the control of peoples lives.
    I am pleased to see that there is no agreement!

  • Comment number 61.

    This is becoming less and less like science and more and more like theology: "Believe in Global Warming or you are an accursed heretic!"

  • Comment number 62.

    American friends tell me *no-one hangs their laundry out to dry unless they're paupers*. Not much hope for the planet when the world's biggest energy guzzler has that attitude

  • Comment number 63.

    First. there is NO scientific evidence that the earth's climate is anything out of the ordinary.
    Second. If the climate where someting special, there is no evidence that co2 is the cause, or that if we change co2 amounts that we can effect what the earth's climated does.
    This is just an example of the dumbing down of the entire world.

  • Comment number 64.

    When will this be put to rest? Governments will do anything to increase their means of acquiring additional tax revenues and moving towards a one world socialist form of governance. If global warming is actually occurring, and is caused by human co2 production, which I do not concur, we should implement a Cap, not a Cap and trade/Tax program. Set "caps" for each CO2 producer and when they are reached cease production for a predetermined period of time, after which production can be resumed. Fines could be applied to those who exceed their limits, and used to fund payments of those who have been temporarily put out of work as a result of reaching their cap. Pollution and population growth are becoming a much greater problem than the worlds climate, which has changed periodically from colder to warmer since the Earth cooled enough to have climate changes.

  • Comment number 65.

    SPEEDTHRILLS wrote:

    Work hard, earn money and live the best lifestyle you can afford and I wish you a better one than mine. And don't worry about the Green Brigade - I certainly dont - they manufacture "facts" to suit their own agenda of the day and so cannot be taken seriously. Forget the "Greens", come and join the "Happy Brigade".
    -----

    You don't sound very happy to me SPEEDTHRILLS. Are you sure your life is so great? Or is it just because Top Gear tells you that's what happiness is?

  • Comment number 66.

    "Climate change" is an entirely natural thing. Nothing that man does has any effect one way or another. Governments, particularly the British government, should stop using "climate change" as a god-given right to put everyone's taxes up.
    There is no such thing as man-made "climate change".

  • Comment number 67.

    29. At 1:23pm on 11 Dec 2010, Joe wrote:

    'Agreed, I think that's why Al Gore called it the inconveniant truth!'

    It is well documented that the film contains 'nine demonstrable lies.' But don't let that put you off.

  • Comment number 68.

    A 'deal to curb climate change'! Is that just about one of the most ridiculous lines that could be written? First of all we don't know if we are affecting climate to any great degree. But the idea that we could set about actually curbing climate change is absurd nonsense. Even if we are causing a little change (big IF!) we should adapt, not make out that we could actually get the US, China and India to alter its ways. It's the most ridiculous thing I've heard this week - after listening to a protesting student that is!

  • Comment number 69.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 70.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 71.

    No but it’s not meant to, it’s an annual jolly paid for by the tax payers so they will keep the ball rolling as long as they can so they get a nice holiday and all the duty free they can carry home, call me cynical but why don’t they ever hold these so called talks in some far off place like Skegness or Grimsby just for once?.

  • Comment number 72.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 73.

    Well, that's it then. I've looked at a good few of the comments and we are massively agreed that the whole Climate Change fiasco is just that and as usual Britain is at the forefront in committing other peoples' money (the politicians haven't yet realised that all our money is now borrowed)to as many crooks and crooked countries as can get their heads in the trough. Huhne and Prescott as representatives just about says it all!

  • Comment number 74.

    24. At 1:15pm on 11 Dec 2010, Mrs Vee wrote:

    It won't make one iota of difference.

    The Earth is powerful and is more than capable of looking after itself; it will continue to change no matter what we do. We, however, are insignificant and eventually we'll all die out, BUT the Earth will be fine. There will probably be a period of regeneration and we'll be replaced by something else.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phew! Thank goodness for that in depth scientific assessment - and there was me thinking that the cumulative effect of man pouring massive quantities of gases into the atmosphere and removing vast tracts of might actually be a contributory factor....

  • Comment number 75.

    Carbon dioxide is not pollution just like nitrogen is not.I saw a news report were a manager from a big american car firm was patting himself on the back with the opening of a new car factory in china.We do the same in the uk and i`m sure we would love more car factories providing jobs.Hundreds and thousands of little carbon dioxide making machines coming out of a big carbon dioxide machine.
    We will fail and some are storing seeds in seed banks and some scientists talk of bring animals back from the dead using dna.Its all about waiting for the big and new economic powers to grow not only on a industrial scale but on social and enviomental ways.It is arrogant but these new economic super powers are ruining their enviroment and eco systems just like the west hundreds of years earlier.
    Now and in the future we will see millions die in floods and giant mud slides.There have been mass exstinctions in earths past.There is nothing to show that humans have the right to continue to exist.We are animals after all.

  • Comment number 76.

    The Great Global Warming scam, now fully funded Tax Payers jollies to talk about nothing but "hot air", still they have got to warrant the lie that pervades, the lie that is nothing more than a worldwide license to extract money from the people who finance these junkets conned by a minority of "soothsayers", still it is said, "if you tell the lie over and over again, it will be believed". Religion is a prime example of this mass hysteria, the sheep phenominon or "I want to be part of this look at me aren't I good, I go to church on Sunday with the other sheep, and now I must not exude carbon dioxide, I am a good follower of mass hysteria, what else can I do to deny myself and live in misery, become celibate? give all my money to Ratzinger, Williams or some other nutter who runs a barmy group of god feters. Global warming, religion and all the other mass hysteria schemes dreamed up by man are the curse of mankind.

  • Comment number 77.

    Man Made Global Warming = The World's Biggest Lie

  • Comment number 78.

    While there is little doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, why does no-one ever mention water vapour and methane? Both these are more important greenhouse gases.
    And why does everyone ignore the biggest single factor in climate change, ie the Sun?
    And while I'm here moaning, I'd like to mention the fact that CO2 levels rise *following* an increase in temperature and not the other way round.

  • Comment number 79.

    FACT! an erupting volcano spews more CO2 into the atmosphere than man creates in 10 years.

    But then, its mans fault that there are erupting volcanoes on ther planet

  • Comment number 80.

    Climate change is a natural phenomenom that we can do nothing to prevent. At best, all that can be achieved is to minimize its effect by taking preventative measures, such as flood barriers, better-designed buildings and emergency plans.

    Global warming, on the other hand, is something we can do a lot about. The application of solar and wave power, both badly neglected in the shadow of wind power, would bring about an immense reduction in our carbon footprint. A solar system installed only 15 years ago to heat the water supply and nothing else has paid for itself by now. Maintenance costs are in most cases nil, and for the rest a five-yearly replacement of antifreeze which the householder can easily do.

    Countries such as the UK, however, are driven exclusively by political interests and money and, while this agreement might sound very noble, it will be just another one that's not worth the paper its written on. We don't have the will or commitment for any strategies longer than a couple of years.

  • Comment number 81.

    Curbing climate change? Sounds to me like a modern version of King Canute! The climate has always changed, always will.

    How can the BBC report Cancun as a success? There is no news here! The nations agreed a general statement to cut CO2 but no targets were agreed by anyone.... err, except remember that we in the UK have burdened ourselves with the Climate Change Act. This is not a success and any self-respecting, objective news organisation should be challenging this.

    What this all means is that we, alone, have burdened our country with achieving targets that will be costly (up to £18billion a year over the next 40 years according to DeFRA) and risk our economy while other countries can roar ahead. In the meantime our fuel bills will go on rising and we know from the Met Office that 28,000 of our fellow citizens die prematurely from the cold each winter. This is a sick joke.

    The only other 'success' that is being trumpeted by the BBC is the 'green climate fund' - of course the third world countries want this because it will be several billions of our taxes (yours and mine) being given to a slush fund for other countries. Personally I'd rather these taxes were being spent from preventing our old people being killed by the cold or providing university education for free!

  • Comment number 82.

    I have for years seen people here on HYS insulting George Bush's intelligence. But Bush was the one world leader who did not get sucked into the hype and this gigantic lie that somehow man is warming the planet and endangering mankind.
    We had people here talking about deliberatly crashing our own economy and spending trillions to somehow fight what most of us now recgognize as a giant international fraud.
    Tremendous pressure was put on Bush to sign these nonsensical treaties like Kyoto.
    Had Bush not been such a smart, wise, leader of tremendous courage he would have signed onto that nonsense and if he had, as bad as our economies are now, we would all be much worse off if he had.

  • Comment number 83.

    No the deal will not work, for the simple reason, politicians are not serious about reducing the high carbon production. You can clearly see this when they fly back from the conference just to place one vote in Parliament and then fly back out produce a huge carbon footprint and wasting money they claim they came back to save. If this vote in parliament was soo important, why did they not delay it until their scheduled return? They have failed to stick to previous agreements, I don’t see them sticking to this one. They use these conference as jollies abroad.

  • Comment number 84.

    "UN conference on climate change" - yet no UN conference on pollution of air and water? No UN conference of mining/lumber companies destroying rain forests, globally, in search of gold, gems and minerals?

    Can we assume that the UN is either out-of-date or incompetent? Indeed, who would dare to suggest that the UN is riddled with corruption, as are some of it's 'members'?

    Certainly not me. The UN is perfect and genuinely represents all nations, and all ordinary people of those UN nations...

  • Comment number 85.

    steve:

    "There is substantial ,indeed overwhelming, scientific agreement on the presence of man made global warming.

    Even if there wasn't moving away from a carbon based fuel system will save countless millions of lives currently lost to respiratory and related disease and probably save numerous animal species which are being wiped out from deforestation."

    ----

    Sentence one is true but irrelevant. Sentence two is deeply wrong, while a billion and a half still do not have electricity.

    The question is not whether man's CO2 emissions are warming the planet - the greenhouse effect says that they are. The question is whether such warming is ever going to be dangerous. There is strong scientific evidence for the greenhouse effect. There is no clear-cut evidence for the positive feedbacks from water vapour and clouds that are absolutely key to the idea of dangerous warming. The IPCC only has one and a half pages on feedbacks out of a thousand, though they are the crucial step in the chain of reasoning that leads to talk of a crisis. Steve McIntyre, the famous Canadian climate blogger, has suggested 300 pages on this issue would be more appropriate. But if the IPCC did this they would be drawing attention to the weakest point in the argument for dangerous global warming. I fear they weren't set up to do such a thing.

    The Royal Society, though, to its credit, recently revised its statement on climate change because of complaints from various fellows that it had previously been inaccurate and simplistic. The new statement makes clear the importance of the feedbacks issue and is honest about the fact that little is known about cloud feedbacks. This is totally foundational. What the RS doesn't talk about is the fact that four billion years have gone by while the earth has had an ocean and during that time the average temperature has gone up and down in a narrow range of 20 degrees Kelvin out of about 280 deg K. This despite major differences in the 'inputs' - for instance the early sun was about 30% less bright than it is today. Yet the earth's thermostat worked then - as it surely will in the future, as our CO2 makes a energy perturbation of about 2% (which is about the most it could do).

    None of this would matter if your optimism about carbon reduction was justified. But all our measures at the moment hit the poorest with devastating consequences. Biofuels have raised food prices to a level that must have caused millions of deaths of those on the bottom of the pile. And all the carbon control schemes now are bound to make electricity much more expensive. There's enough fuel poverty in the UK. But for those who don't have electricity at all this is a death sentence, as they burn wood in huts and their children succumb in their millions to the very respiratory diseases you mention.

    It's all very well talking about the technology of the future. What the poorest billion need now is the cheapest possible food and energy, no strings attached. Anything we do to make these things more expensive is a death sentence for them. So cost free Cancun ain't. And as Dambisa Moyo, the African economist, has shown, massive aid transfers to governments are proven over sixty five years not to reach the poor but to line the pockets and strengthen the position of tyrants. This is another of the debates we are not being allowed to have as the elite meet to decide the future of us all.

    Except that the wheels are clearly coming off the bandwagon. There's very little binding this year, just like last. We all live to fight another day.

    ----------

    Interesting that you chose to format your submission as a response,because you haven't actually responded.

    In no place in my submission did I say that global warming would make a substantial difference,I simply stated the fact that the vast majority of the scientific community accept that it exists and will have some effect.

    You completely ignored the comment regarding respiratory disease choosing to comment on the need for cheap electricity in the third world,while there may well be a need for this it doesn't undermine my entirely valid point that a fossil based system kills tens of millions each year.

    Just to make it clear, in common with many respected figures in the science based environmental movement,I suspect nuclear power combined with solar/ wind/tidal/hydroelectric (proven technologies) will be the way forward for many communities. The cost issue is entirely separate as third world wood burning villages can't afford oil or coal based generation either! Consequently this is an issue regarding funding not outcome.
    It is a shame that Greenpeace for instance chose to label nuclear power as environmentally dangerous back in the 1970's as I suspect US and European emissions would now be substantially reduced if this hadn't been the case.

    The Royal Society as you point out accepts the presence of global warming, the variation in temperature you mention is to do with the dynamics of the orbit of the earth and the makeup of its atmosphere as I am sure you are aware run away greenhouse effects could increase temperatures by hundreds of degrees ,we only have to look at our nearest neighbour to ascertain the effect of this.

    I would point out however that at the peak of the last ice age the entire human population of the world probably dropped to less than 10,000 an increase of 10-15% c in temperature would probably kill us all.

    I would not anticipate that human activity would produce this sort of change however,there is an outside chance it could and we have to act accordingly.

  • Comment number 86.

    I enjoyed reading some of the concerned BBC commenter s . War and the spin-offs from the machines of hate - are BIG violators. Earth needs safe water and food: Not illegal wars that are inconsiderate of the ecology we need to survive. Forests have been regenerating themselves, since time began, supporting millions of living things.

  • Comment number 87.

    29. At 1:23pm on 11 Dec 2010, Joe wrote:

    18. At 1:05pm on 11 Dec 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    "
    14. At 12:56pm on 11 Dec 2010, John Palmer wrote:

    A deal to curb climate change??? What a bunch of wallies. Climate change is a natural and cyclic event. Nothing this bunch of free-loaders do will make the slightest difference. In stead of trying to curb it we should be discussing how we will cope with it.
    "

    Say's John, who's Phd is in?

    _____________________________________

    Agreed, I think that's why Al Gore called it the inconveniant truth!


    As opposed to a convenient lie. Nature will find a way to balance it all out eventually, it will have to because the human race won't do anything about it.

  • Comment number 88.

    43. At 2:12pm on 11 Dec 2010, steve wrote:
    You are going to feel even more stupid and wet or thirsty depending on your location if they are right!

    Don't worry too much Steve - none of the predictions warmist scientists have made have ever come true. They have to make outrageous predictions to claim they are trying to save the world and get grants
    ---------
    The purpose of preventative action is to avoid something happening,it is a bit late waiting until the water is lapping around your toes to think maybe they had a point!

    As I also made clear the effects of reduced dependency on fossil fuel have substantial public health benefits irrespective of global warming.

    Mind you I do feel like the lone voice supporting a reasoned and cautious approach while all the antis bleat on about left wing gravy trains and warmism(whatever the hell that is).

  • Comment number 89.


    69. At 2:50pm on 11 Dec 2010, you wrote:
    69. At 2:50pm on 11 Dec 2010, you wrote:
    34. At 1:45pm on 11 Dec 2010, you wrote:

    20. At 1:10pm on 11 Dec 2010, Erkules wrote:

    It would be interesting to see a "Wikileaks" type revelation as to what gov'ts ,scientific & other bodies REALLY think or believe about MMCC.

    ///////////////

    Yes I would be really interested in those Leaks too !

    Whatever became of Wikileaks

    And is Juilian Assange still incarserated WITHOUT charge or has he been whisked off somewhere?

    No use looking to the BBC to inform us..

    Who is killing the Wikileaks story???

    This will be moderated out !!

    //////////////////////

    Told you it would be moderated out

    The reason off topic??

    The true reason BBC running scared !!!

    ///////////////////////////

    OK on topic...

    Of all the end of days scenarios that have been proposed, human extinction in our own feaces was not thought of?

    But it would appear that is the way we have decided to go.

    So we may as well live it up !!

  • Comment number 90.


    It is true that humans are making an impact on a global scale.. it is intrinsic in the population size and international industrialization processes.

    Without a major step up in technology humans will continue that impact on the environment.

    However, Earth's weather and climate has changed since the formation of the earth some 4.5 billion years ago. In this respect we are feeble and probably naive to think we can control nature.

    Personally I believe we are soon headed for another cool period (Ice Age)
    and would have already been well inside it had we not contributed to global warming. We could still CRASH into another cool period WITHOUT WARNING.

    Alternatively, if man made global warming manages to offset cooling completely, the warming cycle could continue.

    The temperatures of Earth have fluctuated from freezing to very hot (quite quickly at times) over billions of years... on larger scales than we are presently experiencing.

    I believe it is a good cash cow for those that sell and buy Earth's Atmosphere.
    Pollution should be banned not traded.
    Taxation affects only the poor.

  • Comment number 91.

    82. At 3:32pm on 11 Dec 2010, ONE-SICK-PUPPY wrote:

    I have for years seen people here on HYS insulting George Bush's intelligence. But Bush was the one world leader who did not get sucked into the hype and this gigantic lie that somehow man is warming the planet and endangering mankind.
    We had people here talking about deliberatly crashing our own economy and spending trillions to somehow fight what most of us now recgognize as a giant international fraud.
    Tremendous pressure was put on Bush to sign these nonsensical treaties like Kyoto.
    Had Bush not been such a smart, wise, leader of tremendous courage he would have signed onto that nonsense and if he had, as bad as our economies are now, we would all be much worse off if he had.

    -----

    Is that also why Bush also proudly proclaimed the US "the world's biggest polluter" while punching the air at the G8 summit?

    Face it, Bush didn't refuse to sign the treaty because he was skeptical of the evidence. He refused to sign the treaty because it would mean compromising the profits of the oil companies that stood to lose millions if the US was forced to fund new modes of transport and more efficient engines. Whether or not the evidence of man-made global warming had any basis or not (I don't believe it does to the extent that the media and governments are trying to convince us) had absolutely no effect on Bush's decision.

    But hey, when you're jaded you're jaded. You're beyond hope I'm afraid.

  • Comment number 92.

    88. At 3:47pm on 11 Dec 2010, steve wrote:
    43. At 2:12pm on 11 Dec 2010, steve wrote:
    You are going to feel even more stupid and wet or thirsty depending on your location if they are right!

    Don't worry too much Steve - none of the predictions warmist scientists have made have ever come true. They have to make outrageous predictions to claim they are trying to save the world and get grants
    ---------
    The purpose of preventative action is to avoid something happening,it is a bit late waiting until the water is lapping around your toes to think maybe they had a point!

    As I also made clear the effects of reduced dependency on fossil fuel have substantial public health benefits irrespective of global warming.

    Mind you I do feel like the lone voice supporting a reasoned and cautious approach while all the antis bleat on about left wing gravy trains and warmism(whatever the hell that is)
    ===============================================================

    Preventative action? We're told that AGW is here and now.

    As for being the lone voice, the tide has turned. The scam has been outed. Not even many warmists on this thread - or are they still making their way back from the student riots?

  • Comment number 93.

    As long as I keep getting the generous payments from the power companies for the solar energy I generate then I have to say "climate change" has had a positive effect on my quality of life so far.

  • Comment number 94.

    Trying to cut consumption is pointless. As long as we continue to extract fossil fuels, someone will burn them. As far as global warming is concerned the reason for burning the fossils really doesn't matter.

    Only when there are talks about the fossil fuel producing countries being forced to cut production there will be some chance of preventing global warming.

  • Comment number 95.

    What has been kept very quite is that Cancun recording its lowest temperatures on record this week.

  • Comment number 96.

    While we're still importing bottled water from Fiji, please don't expect us to take climate change measures seriously.

  • Comment number 97.

    95. At 4:01pm on 11 Dec 2010, Eimear wrote:

    What has been kept very quite is that Cancun recording its lowest temperatures on record this week


    The beauty of using the term "climate change", as opposed to the old fashioned term "global warming", is that any change in the weather can be attributed to it so whatever happens the scientists are always proved right. Clever isn't it?

  • Comment number 98.

    The whole 'climate change' debate is a scam. Heck, just last year the libs with an agenda were calling it 'global warming', until record cold temperatures around the world made a mockery of that theory. At the end of the day, the whole issue is about taking money away from the countries that actually produce things, and redistributing that wealth to the third world countries that just sit, do nothing, and complain. Oh wait, we don't say 'third world' anymore either, I should have used the more politically correct term of 'developing nations'. If the world's nations really want to have a summit that matters, let it be on curbing the rise of islamic extremism.

  • Comment number 99.

    What UK must focus on is increasing recycling and becoming a world leader in Renewable energy. Only this way will UK become less dependent on foreign oil and gas and reduce costs to enable the UK to compete in the world. In addition it will increase efficiency and reduce the effects on the climate

  • Comment number 100.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

 

Page 1 of 6

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.