As Climate Breakdown Accelerates, UK Government Wanks Away - Guardian

[hatrack]

The spectre of the Greenland ice shelf collapsing has once again focused the world's attention on the threat of global warming. Fresh evidence that this gargantuan ice cube is sliding into the Atlantic Ocean twice as fast as a decade ago was not the only bad news. Last week, we also heard the first-ever forecast of how rising global temperatures will change our weather to the end of the millennium. It warned that seas could rise by more than 11 metres, so changing the face of the planet.

EDIT

Against this dramatic backdrop, we might expect the government to be doing something extraordinary to protect its citizens. Instead, it is obfuscating, prevaricating, politicking.

Carbon dioxide is the biggest manmade cause of global warming, so it is a good benchmark by which to judge government actions to tackle the problem. And it is true that Britain is one of the few countries on course to meet its target to cut carbon dioxide under the beleaguered Kyoto agreement (though more by luck than design and, in recent years, Britain's carbon dioxide emissions have been rising again).

Otherwise, there is little to be proud of. The Prime Minister, who once worked hard to get the wider world to act, appears to be vacillating. A review of climate-change policy has been repeatedly delayed, reportedly because some departments refuse to pull their weight. A recent study by the government's Sustainable Development Commission revealed that some ministries were failing even their internal environmental targets. Apparently small, potentially cost-neutral suggestions, such as council tax rebates for home efficiency improvements and bigger gaps between car tax bands to encourage motorists to buy more environmentally friendly models, have still not been accepted, despite studies showing that they can be powerful agents of change.

EDIT

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,,1713004,00.html

[Deja Q]

1. Maybe that's a reason why New Orleans SHOULD be abandoned?

After all, a lot of it is below sea level and look at the damage done by Katrina.

It's better for the people in the long run.

We can't go back, rebuild, and then moan when it all gets splashed again.

And before anyone talks of tradition, maybe NEW traditions could be made.

[phantom power]

2. I once tried to suggest that idea, and was roundly vilified for it.

I don't exactly blame the vilifiers. It's easy for me to say "hey, there may not be a future there." It's not my home. On the other hand, I think that is the reality of the situation, regardless of how rude it might be for me to point it out.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. It's not home to a lot of people, now.

There was a long and convuluted thread about the possible abandonment of NOLA. I suspect it it had been suggested by Gore, rather than a repub, it would have gone down a bit better.

Building a city below sea-level, on a flood plain in a hurricane belt once might be considered unfortunate. Building it twice might be considered stupid.

One of the definitions of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results. Discuss.

[mikita]

4. I suspect what we'll see in the end

is a city rebuilt, but not for the folks who were displaced, but for super-rich elites, who will then be protected and bailed out (as it were) when the next disaster hits, with taxes paid by those displaced.

Sounds like a repub wet-dream, dontcha think?

[Dead_Parrot]

5. So long as they have houses on stilts... nt

[Odin2005]

6. NO should be rebuilt as densely as posible.

The less area the city takes up the less length of dikes you need to protect the city. It will never happen of course because abandoning low areas like the lower 9th ward will lead to charges of racism. :crazy: