Talk about Newsnight

Why is the government persisting with biofuels. When there is so much evidence about the harm they cause why do we need another review/enquiry into them, can you not just take the decision to ban them?

If the government loses the BIOT (i.e. Diego Garcia inhabitants) case in the House of Lords next month how will it manage resettlement of the islands?

How is a low-carbon economy compatible with calling for more production from OPEC? Why has this Government been frittering away the inheritance of North Sea oil and discouraging further exploration by sharply raising North Sea oil taxes two years ago?

And why can't the Prime Minister keep up to date with oil prices? Today he assured the House of Commons that the oil price was "now at $110" a barrel - whereas in fact it is at or over $120! Is this because he has made the mistake of assuming that the pace of inflation is accurately reflected in the official CPI/RPI measures?

Does Mr Miliband accept that the move to a low carbon economy will only be accomplished through new cleaner technology?

If so how does he reconcile this with the recent cuts in science funding reported by Newsnight.

Can the shift to low carbon economy sustains a steady economic growth?

Thanks and Regards

How can you have a straight face when claiming that a low carbon economy is the key to low food prices, when it is the knee-jerk reaction to increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that has led to monstrous hikes in the cost of food crops?

How can you justify this when the earth has been cooling for a decade and the most recent data categorically shows that human induced global warming is NOT happening?

For example, the NASA Aqua satellite data shows NO warming in the upper atmosphere, lower levels of water vapour than expected and a total lack of tropospheric heat island. Without this heat island, the central mechanism for man made global warming does NOT exist.

The Argos sub-sea probes also show cooling of the oceans. Other global measuring systems are showing the same results. The IPCC are busy scrambling around, altering their models and hoping that warming picks up again in 2015... In fact the only place where catastrophic CO2 induced global warming occurs is in computer models that have been proven wrong. The earth is not behaving that way at all.

Can you point to one single computer model that predicted the 10 year drop in temperatures that we have witnessed since the peak in 1998? Or one that does NOT have the tropospheric heat island?

In fact, How can anyone take you seriously as a party on anything, when your central identity as a party of the working class has been exposed as a cruel and humiliating hoax by the fact of your cynical betrayal? Wasting hundreds of billions of tax payer pounds to bail out banks with loan guarantees on worthless loans, whilst at the same time doubling the taxes on the poorest workers?

Wars started with lies, £Billions for billionaire bankers and taxes doubled for the poor! That is labour's legacy.

Dear Mr Miliband,

Please would you explain how cutting back on Science funding and education is going to help the UK become a less hydrocarbon dependent country?

Surely we will need all the innovative and bright young minds we can find? This is surely rhetoric at its best!

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Townley

How can a Labour Government that is falling behind in the polls make the radical and sometimes unpopular changeswithout loosing further public support?

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

A low carbon economy will require a radical change in the way we lead our lives. How can a Labour Government that is falling behind in the polls make the radical and sometimes unpopular changeswithout loosing further public support?

As a local Councillor trying to combat the effects of climate change, I am continually frustrated by the lack of a Planning Directive that will allow us to insist that new build properties must, as part of the Planning process, include such items as Photo-voltaic cells, grey water schemes, recycling facilities and mini wind turbines. Developers see this as an extra cost and will not accede unless forced to. When will the government make this simple enabling order?

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

Over a year ago David Miliband rightly predicted on BBC Question Time

"People will be saying 'wouldn't it be great to have that Blair back because we can't stand that Gordon Brown',"

These were prophetic words. Does he now regret not standing for the leadership against Gordon Brown last year?

Never mind the high brow stuff like global warming and foreign aid, thats on hold with a government that failed to spot the problems with removing the 10p rate! With the recent results in local and London elections all the British people want to know is when will Gordon Brown face the electorate and let us decide if he should be the person in number 10 or not?

If Labour lose Crewe and Nantwich will Mr Millband join us in calling for a General Election, as Brown will have had 3 strikes and your out with regard to the publics point of view!

Is closer engagement with Europe particularly around employment and the euro the best way to distinguish yourselves from the Conservative party? And given the PM's eurosceptic attitude, is there any chance of that happening?

The size of the carbon footprint may have more to do with the weather and the size of the population, neither of which the government has much prospect of controlling.

However, some small saving might be found in this Information Age, and that is by encouraging companies to keep their workers at home. Perhaps Information Age business premises could be taxed by the square foot, encouraging smaller, fewer of premises.

Before the Industrial Age this was not an issue as everyone lived over the shop or on the farm.

Thanks for reading this,

Terrance Chapman.

David Milliband is familiar with our Shark and Coral Conservation Trust. We are doing our first schools presentation (on shark depletion and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)) on Friday 9th May.

Four questions for him - - -
a. Can he confirm that the Marine Bill will be brought onto the statute books during the current parliamentary session (it places obligations on power stationsand others to capture their CO2 emissions for storage below the North Sea bed). How is this being monitored ??

b. What are his views on the BP Peterhead refinery - Miller field pipeline project (separating out hydrogen (burns with only water exhaust) and CO2 (to pressurise the pipeline and optimise gas/oil recovery)).

c. Is there a future industry for the UK oil industry in the spare North Sea capacity of the depleted oil/gas strata becoming available to other CCS nations.

d. What are his views on replacing fossil fuel combustion with hydrogen combustion. If positive, how long will that process take? BY 2025 the oceans will be so acidic that the formation of coral reefs (and all they support) will become impossible. By 2012, the oceans are due to vecome "CO2-saturated".

Yours faithfully

Monty Halls (Senior)
Secretary
SCCT

Yoursm

Monty Halls (Senior)
Secretary
SCCT

Isn't the solution population control? Carbon control means real (living) people must modify their behaviour for the benefit of imagined (not yet born) people. If the imagined people are never to become real (i.e.never born) there is no reason real people should make sacrifices for "them".
We have as much chance of persuading the expanding nations to slow down population growth as we have of persuading them to reduce carbon emissions and other pollutants. If we really want the earth to support human life for longer we need less people. I'm not convinced we should worry. We cannot prevent the end of the human race, just perhaps delay it to allow the births and deaths of extra people, who would otherwise never exist (and so are not worth worrying about).

David Milliband is familiar with our Shark and Coral Conservation Trust. We are doing our first schools presentation (on shark depletion and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)) on Friday 9th May.

Four questions for him - - -
a. Can he confirm that the Marine Bill will be brought onto the statute books during the current parliamentary session (it places obligations on power stationsand others to capture their CO2 emissions for storage below the North Sea bed). How is this being monitored ??

b. What are his views on the BP Peterhead refinery - Miller field pipeline project (separating out hydrogen (burns with only water exhaust) and CO2 (to pressurise the pipeline and optimise gas/oil recovery)).

c. Is there a future industry for the UK oil industry in the spare North Sea capacity of the depleted oil/gas strata becoming available to other CCS nations.

d. What are his views on replacing fossil fuel combustion with hydrogen combustion. If positive, how long will that process take? BY 2025 the oceans will be so acidic that the formation of coral reefs (and all they support) will become impossible. By 2012, the oceans are due to become "CO2-saturated".

Yours faithfully

Monty Halls (Senior)
Secretary
SCCT

Yoursm

Monty Halls (Senior)
Secretary
SCCT

Given the Foreign Secretary's short time in the job, and indeed his inexperience of foreign affairs, and at a time of enormous tensions around the world from the Middle East to Darfur and Zimbabwe why does he feel justified in taking considerable time out now to develop a paper on developing a low carbon economy in Britain? Does he have any particular expertise in this field? Or, as many will suspect, is this just political posturing before a leadership challenge when the opportunity arrises?

Would the government discuss the possibility of returning its bases in Cyprus to the new administration if such an action helped a comprehensive solution onj the island?

David
What are you going to do to recognize my 'green footprint' with respect to my car. It will be 20 years old next year. It is a 1988 Volkswagon Estate. It has a 1588 CC diesel engine and its fuel economy does between 50mpg short urban to 62mpg on a longer run. This is similar to its official figures. This is therefore not like the examples I've seen used in other arguments to remove old cars from the road whose mileage is down to the teens or early 20's like Jaguars and Rangerovers etc. It requires minimal maintenance to pass MOT and is therefore of reasonable condition. To my mind it has avoided the carbon cost of manufacture of 4 vehicles assuming renewal every 5 years and the carbon cost of their disposal. It is more fuel efficient than many 'smart cars' and will run on any 'green' fuels if neccessary.
I'd like to have my road tax reduced accordingly.
Mark

Why is Mr Miliband, like other members of the cabinet, so hit and miss with his pronunciation of the letter "t."

Is this his policy ideas or is he spouting others words - dose he consider himself to be old enough and wise enough and experianced enough to make any decisions on behalf of the people of this country and will he suffer any loss through his actions or will the British people subsadise his pocket while we suffer as normal.

Will Mr Milliband throw his hat into the ring when Mr Brown falls on his own sword in the coming months?....

Why is HMG continuing to waste Millions of Pounds of Taxpayers money as it fights against British and International Law as it tries to uphold its ILLEGAL actions against the people of the Chagos islands ?

Why are British Subjects expected to obey the Law, when our own Government does NOT ?

Id like to know if Mr Milliband agrees that solving the long term problem of climate change is incompatible with short, 5 year term parliaments. Surely the measures required are going to be painful so no government needing re-election would ever pursue rigorous enough policies. It seems that all 3 parties are essesntially agreed on the scale of the issue and the need to address is seriously, so wouldnt it be wise to create an all party climate change group - with representation from the scientific community too, with the mandate to create the UKs policies in this arena and for those parties to be obliged to carry out these policies when they form a government. By removing the politics from the issue we just might get a set of policies that will actually work, rather than the wonderful rhetoric but lightweight, ineffective actual polcies that are the inevitable product of securing power in the short term.

Mr Milliband
Transport in the UK accounts for 20--25% of total CO2 emissions, and the highest emissions come from passenger cars.

Don't you think that as a first step car consumers should be legally entitled to vital CO2 and fuel efficiency information across all car advertising so that they can make an informed choice given the current environmental and economics problems we face?

If you look at most billboards and internet sites there is no CO2 information supplied, or it is so small, or in a mishmash of positions and fonts, that it's almost impossible to glean what the emissions really are - shouldn't it be the government's position to protect the consumer and enforce the display of the information in a standard, consistent and legible manner?

Are you also in favor of making further moves, as suggested by Julia King recently, to include the 10 year lifetime running costs in the car showroom, as well as making colour coded tax discs so that cars are easily identifiable by their VED band, and therefore educating us all as to the emissions of the car models?

My question to David Miliband:

Is the future a Europe of regions rather than a Europe of nations?

Dr Ron McDonald.

Dear Mr Milliband

Since all the latest scientific readings prove that the world is cooling - potentially rapidly - and that the previous computer models were flawed why waste taxpayers' money on futile gestures in respect of CO2, a necessary gas to prevent the world becvoming a giant snowball.

In any case man-made CO2 is a tiny fraction of the CO2 from natural sources.

You have jumped on a bandwagon with a broken axle!
Christina Speight

I would like to ask you whether you, as a party, are serious when you say you have to "listen" to the people.
If you are serious then please listen to our pleas for a chance to vote on the EU constitution (aka the Lisbon treaty) as promised in your last manifesto.
If you don't allow a vote then you will have been rumbled as a bunch of shallow salesmen that decide on what you want to listen to and not what the public want you to listen to. In which case you deserve to be well and truly beaten at all levels of government.

Danny Fincham, Eastleigh

Sir glad to have you on this programme, so since the Carbon fuel is not going to go into extition soo and seeing that food is going into extition and vz a viz human lifes what shoul be the atitude of responsible goverments in the face of this also i want you to comment to the tratments of Nigerians aboard BA flights and at entry points of your country.Thank you sir

A 61 year old english guy working and living in Tokyo for over two years..
well aware of the Japan-UK Joint Reseach Project "Roadmap to Low Carbon World".. both nations have their own LCE target for 2050.. the UK 60% and Japan 70%.
However, it seem to me this unilateral, sorry bilateral approach is just not enough to solve a massive global problem. Are the UK and Japanese governments convinced they can persuade many other nations to come onboard making it a multilateral, rather megalateral approach.
The combined 200 million population of UK/Japan is afterall [pardon the pun] a mere drop in the ocean [both island states!]

Can truly radical changes in society ever be achieved by democratically elected governments, or will they always be voted out at the next opportunity by an electorate and market focused on short term gratification?

And as a postscript to comment 11 re the planning system - a volume housebuilder once said in a seminar when I posed a question about what they're doing to prepare for climate change "if we had our way the toilets would still be in the garden - we won't do anything that costs us more unless we're made to"

Julian Mellor, Somerset

Will the up-dating of the Trident Missle System have an effect on the transformation of Britain into a low carbon economy.

Qu 1: Will it ever be possible to see the choices (especially many, much vaunted 'alternative' options) broken out as peer-reviewed, agenda-free, non-lobbyist-influenced, 'clearly identified subsidy-support requiring' and based in fact? Also in spin-free, clear, objective, accurate, pro and con terms so that 'we', the voting, tax-paying public, can assess, decide upon and/or support, confident that we are not being managed by government, compliant media and interest groups to achieve box-ticking targets that have little to do with our kids' futures by being little more than just 'looking' like 'carbon' is being reduced?

Qu 2. If so, please do. A few starters for 10 (off the top of my head - sorry, no legions of research wonks at my disposal, as have most govt. ministers and programme makers)...

Wind farms.
Nuclear.
Latest Road Tax logic.
Coal fired power stations with no scrubbing systems planned.
Vast quangos with even greater comms budgets that DO what, exactly?
Focusing on trivia such as plastic bags when there is a LOT more, more critically, going on.
Cutting support in key areas allowing an individual option to help, such as solar, etc

Plus a few others I am sure others have/will provide...

Is it really worth the UK ruining it's economy and making us all poorer to save a paltry 1 or 2 percent of global CO2 emissions, whist China, the US and India forge ahead regardless?

IF Climate change is happening is it not better to prepare for the change, rather than the Cnut-like* attitude the Governemnt is currently displaying?

*That's Canute-like... I once got a posting banned for using the proper spelling...

As global temperatures have not gone up for 10 years - why do you want to destroy the UK economy and way of life - by following some unproven green agenda.

There is a lot of confusion about the so called low Carbon Econmy. We need a clearer definition from David Miliband.

Spiralling oil and food prices have nothing to do with high carbon emissions. It is a demand and supply issue in the fast growing world at present. The low carbon concept has minimal impact on this equation.

The real solution is finding an adequtae alternative source of power like nuclear. We have not done anything about this though we have been talking about this since the first oil shock in the 1970s. All other talks are palliatives that will not lead to lasting solution.

Can he catagorically assure 2 million people, 250,000 kids and the 100 plus people who will die as a result of expansion at Heathrow(due to noise and air quality health impacts) that the government is not seeking to get a 10 year air quality waiver for Heathrow from The EU? That aviation is enjoys tax free fuel as appose to civilians who 64% on car fuel

Given the effect of oceans and the sun on the Earth's climate, with Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory finding that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase and the continue inactivity of the Sun, doesn't it occur to the Minister that his speech is somewhat perverse?

The PDO will have a downward effect on temperatures for the next three decades. The behaviour of the Sun with the lack of sunspots suggests that the pessimists are correct and that the planet is facing another Maunder Minimum period. If the Minister knows his history, that period was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. Against this, the increases in CO2 concentrations will be overwhelmed.

The next couple of decades will be colder and agriculture will become less productive. Its not going to be a great time yet the Minister is planning for a fantasy. Nature is far more powerful than man.

It will fall to you, Mr Milliband, to present the UK case to the Chinese and Indians that they should not build coal-fired power stations without operational carbon capture technology fitted from the outset. As it is your government is planning to give the green light to unabated coal-fired power stations in the UK. If this policy is not reversed, will you not - to use Nye Bevan's phrase about negotiations with the Soviets - be going into the conference chamber naked?

Hello Mr Milliband;

Can you tell me why you and the rest of your British Parliamentary members always water down your words of condemnation when it comes to Israeli violation of human rights and collective punishment?

Does being Jewish yourself cloud your judgement?


Thanks
Dell.

Dear Mr Miliband,

Who authorised the use of Depleted Uranium munitions in Iraq/Afghanistan?

How will any of our troops who develop cancer in the future be compensated?

Yours Sincerely,

Bret Calvey

Why doesn't the government halt the use of biofuels from crops now, considering:

(i) we already know there is a scarcity of food - simply not enough left over to go round the poor - so each unit of food turned into fuel is a unit less for hungry mouths?

(ii) the review it has commissioned is by the Renewable Fuels Agency, 3/5 of whose board appointments are from industry stakeholders in biofuels, so it's as unlikely to be impartial as turkeys would be about Christmas?

(ii) the EU Joint Research Centre has already warned that the costs of EU biofuels exceed the benefits, and cellulosic ethanol is even less cost-effective than first generation (report at https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=2550%29?

Bilateral relations between the UK and Russian Federation continue to be difficult and edgy. Does the inauguration of President Medvedev present an opportunity for an easing of tensions and will the Foreign Secretary take advantange of it?

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a wholistic approach across Parliament is necessary to ensure a successful future for Britain? The piecemeal approach and backbiting in Parliament which is prolific currently is unhelpful and destructive. As a man hailed as a potential leader of his party does Mr Milliband have any intention of helping to bring about change in a more meaningful way than Labour's current short term band-aid approach?

With Labour in the doldrums is it not time for a return to a more radical agenda such as introducing a tax rate of 50% on those earning in excess of £100,000. Otherwise the existing mundane policies being delivered in such an uninspiring manner can only spell certain and humiliating defeat in the next election.

How will the Government reach it's carbon targets when only a few of the planned millions of new homes will be carbon neutral? How long will the non-carbon-neutral homes last?

Algae is the only feed-stock for biofuels that could conceivably make a significant contribution. It could also be used to absorb CO2 from conventional power stations. What is the Government doing to encourage research into algae based biofuels?

In more than 10years in Government, what has been the Labour achivements in making Britain a low carbon Country and Economy?
Nothing! for 10 years Northsea oil and gas has been squandered for the profit of the treasury coffins.

Is the Government still considering the use of personal tradable carbon allowances as a way of encouraging consumers to demand energy efficient products and services from suppliers?

How can you reconcile aiming for a low carbon economy and not rule out now a third runway at heathrow Airport?

It would generate more air and noise pollution to an already polluted area of West london.

Not only is air travel the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases - it is also one of the most damaging because the pollutants are released at high atmospheric levels. Travel too and from Heathrow causes traffic congestion through additional car based travel due to its location.

THE GLOTTAL SLUR

If we play a tape of "early Miliband" will the use of "wo-happened" and the like, be evident in his speech? Would the aspiring Prime Minister agree with me that to ape a silly mannerism of the leader, is a sign of weak character?

NB The Blair glottal slur, is not the same as the 'Stenders' glottal stop. That is: "wo' 'appened". ( I hope the blog gremlin does not mess with my apostrophes!)

No doubt your augument ref carbon foot-print tonight will be full of stats and quasi-science.

Why should we believe you when, collectively, the entire cabinet couldn't work the maths out that 20p tax is TWICE 10p tax ?

The trend for CO2 targets seems clear - the numbers are getting bigger and the timescales are getting shorter. An 80% reduction in emissions by 2030 leaves only 5000 'work days' to achieve a total transformation of the UK (and other's) economy. A prudent, precautionary approach would be to 'backcast' a plan from 2030 to today, and from that, work out what needs to happen tomorrow, this week, this year. Will you commit now to making this happen and dedicate the resources need to build a change plan to save civilisation?

Andy Middleton

Many outside the UK see you as a very bright and enlightened leader who can come up with unconventional solutions. Will you be reiterating your calibre by looking outside traditional Western paradigms? For e.g. will you promote vegetarianism as an eight times more efficient way to feed the world? Or are you going to be bound by your baggage of looking at such ideas as not yet politically appropriate?

I live in Singapore and have lived a healthy and successful life for 40 years without once eating any kind meat, fish or other sea food. It is not that difficult you know...

For largely economic reasons there is a rapid expansion in environmentally damaging short haul flights within the UK. What is the Government going to do to discourage this? Would it look at encouraging a network of luxury coaches linking to urban transit systems at motorway junctions as a way of reducing congestion and reducing CO2 output?

UK companies do not feature strongly in the global low carbon technology sector for example in the FTSE Environmental Technology 50 index there are only 3 UK companies compared to 5 from Germany, 4 from Spain and 18 from the US. What can the government do to encourage greater innovation from UK companies in the environmental technology sector?

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

Why has the Foreign Office's decided to abandon work on sustainable development in favour of just focussing on climate change as if this is the only SD issue? This just provides further evidence that the Governement refuses to see the whole picture but instead focusses on selected (albeit large) parts of it and in so doing fails to recognise that the solutions are holistic ones that it isn't set up to deliver.

P.S. If you claim that everything else is covered by it being "mainstreamed" (usually code for sidelined) please can you give some objective evidence for this.

I would like to know when Gordon Brown will finally admit that the game is up and resign from the position he took, unelected from the discredited and mistrusted Blair. I would also like to know what we are going to do about the massive overcrowding we are all suffering in this country due to Labour's insane immigration policies.

Low carbon economy as far as this government is concerned, invariably means more taxes. It seems they have learned nothing from the recent electoral disaster. All they know is how to tax and spin....they are sleep walking into oblivion.

Isn't this "greening" approach just another excuse to increase the taxes you already impose on us? Why not bring our armed services personnel home from American wars and reduce the worlds carbon footprint positively?

DEMOCRATIC INTEGRITY

Given that it takes almost four times the votes to secure a Lib Dem seat (with reference to a Labour one) and somewhet less than two times the votes for a Tory seat, will he PERSONALLY speak out for reform, or is this situation OK with the Honorable D Milliband?

Is it this governments intention to continue down the nuclear route? Do you still insist on buying American nuclear reactors? Also, do you still intend to buy the American nuclear weapons system that none of us wants?

There was once a time when the Foreign Secretary was a hard hitting formidable character with years of experience. Apart from reading text books what experience do you think you have to do your job?

Please can Jeremy dress like a cowboy and interview Millie same as Mini -me the other night - it was so good even the Standard are still in print with the graphics
Jeremy is the new walrus

The Chief Scientific Adviser and numerous members of the House of Lords have highlighted the perverse moves towards biofuel production advocated by the European Commission. These have already caused, and are still causing not only shortages of food crops but also the incentive for furhter excessive destruction of rain forests in nations such as Brazil to provide high-quality farmland, and the farming of otherwise natural habitats which will take years of lying fallow to reverse. In these circumstances would the Foriegn Secretary care to congratulate Robert Mugabe for returning high-quality farmland to its original state.

Whenever Government ministers discuss climate change and over-expoitation of the earth's limited resources, including fossil fuels, the need to cut-back on consumption never seems to be acknowledged.

The lifestyles of many in the developed world are almost certainly unsustainable, even with more efficient technology, but the need to restrain the excesses of consumerism is dismissed. The message being that if we could only use the bus occasionally and fit energy efficient light bulbs, it will all be OK.

Isn't it the case that if we are to have a sustainable, carbon neutral future, dramatic changes to lifestyles will be required? When will the Government and opposition parties publicly acknowledge this and start working towards this end - hopefully before it is too late?

Neil

The Government should be applauded for introducing a target of 60% reduction in CO2 output by 2050. However the scientific consensus is for a 60% reduction worldwide which implies a 90% reduction for developed countries. Is the Government looking at ways it might achieve this more ambitious target?

As a proud gas guzzler with a raging case of American hubris, do you really think a unilateral British policy can make headway in the truly global problem of climate change?

Two questions.

Q1. Given that this government has pushed incoherent policies based upon naive ideology and Hollywood fantasy, rather than quantifiable evidence or relevant expert testimony, how can we be expected to believe anything this government announces?


Some related examples:
Giving up freedoms to 'win' the 'War on Terror'.
Reclassification of cannabis without apparently understanding expert advice.
Biometric ID cards.
Laws on prostitution.
(Really the list could just go on and on.)



Q2. Why is it that the HoC with so many lawyers makes such a mess of creating laws?


Some related examples:
Mission creep on the RIP act so local government is now spying on residents (the enemy?).

The current fiasco that is the Criminal Justice Bill (studiously avoided by Newsnight, when either a brief summary of the amount of legislation introduced by this government would be enlightening, or discussion of anomalies in the proposed Criminal Justice Bill would at least be cynically amusing).

I'd like to ask Mr Miliband a couple of questions about the upcoming treaty to ban cluster bombs that will be negotiated in Dublin this month:

Firstly will the UK take a leading role to ensure the agreement of this treaty to ban cluster munitions?

Secondly is the UK under pressure from the United States not to endorse a ban on cluster munitions?

Generally spekaing this is admirable stuff from David Miliband and, to my mind, the kind of conviction and vision that the present government needs if it is to be re-elected. However, speaking as someone actively involved in green issues for over 25 years and on climate change since our first Greenpeace campaign in 1987, the government sends hugely confusing price, regulatory and procurement signals on sustainabiltiy. sort thes eout forst before you do too much exhortation and imploring of ordinary people...and we will follow...

Jonathan Smales
Beyond Green

Dear Mr Miliband,

Last October Ms Ruth Kelly told the Observer that:

'We can see aviation emissions growth, but [that will] be offset one-for-one elsewhere
in Europe.'

[https://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2200616,00.html%5D

Is the government advocating that other people should cut their emissions so that we can carry on as usual?

When the Government invites bids for new nuclear power stations will the Government ensure that the bidders include financial provision to cover the full cost of decommissioning, waste storage and insurance for all of the third party risks?

Is the talking up of the environment just a distraction from failing to plan for our energy needs? Are we paying now for a lack of a coherent plan earlier? Having ideas about energy is totally different from a coherent energy policy. Is Labour respected enough internationally to make the right partnerships to secure our future? We need more than a dream of a greener future.

What are David's views on the idea of a single, secular democratic state of Israel/Palestine rather than the two-state solution that has been pursued for so long now?

What is the point of us doing anything;when China ,India and the majority of other countries are not doing any thing,except increasing pollution.....it appears that we are in the same position as the little Dutch boy with his finger plugging the hole in the Dyke.......but with no one coming to save us?

Zimbabwe - when is the Brit govt. going to get cross with the failure by "Africa" to DO anything about Mugabe other than support and applaud him. In particular Malawi and South Africa - especially Mbeki with his No crisis in Zimbabwe, Allow transit of Chinese arms and refusal to allow subject to be raised in Security Council. By all means let Africa deal with their problems provided they do something in face of killings and lootings by ZANU PF.

On a general note - Do you believe MP's are answerable to their constituents or are the results of last week's election evidence that people don't feel the government is listening?

What are you, personally, going to do about it?

Why should we ever believe anything Mr Miliband tells us?

https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x71INuYQnTk

Biofuels are a disaster and we need to build nuclear power stations as France has done for the past 30 years before we get more BROWN OUTs.

Dear Mr Miliband
Why are politicians so untrustworthy and despised?

How long do you think the labour party has left?

I see my comment was withdrawn because I included a youtube web URL which showed Mr Miliband lying through his teeth. I never posted here before and tried again. This, the third time, will be lucky I hope.

Anyone wanting to view it should type in
We Are Change UK featuring Hilary Benn
in which you will see this most serpentine politician playing his craft well. There is only one solution to the energy crisis and that is nuclear power.


Lastly you can see the future they plan for you on Alex Jones Endgame again on google videos. Let us hope Newsnight will not lose the opportunity to eviscerate this most dangerous of pretenders to the throne.

To Mr Milliband:

Do you believe in the theory of the carbon cycle, if so shouldn't we be planting more trees instead of taxing according to how much CO2 we produce?

Isn't the predicted population growth for the United Kingdom going to increase the levels of CO2 we produce beyond our control? Why then should we bother with taxes?

1. Is the government going to be supporting global initiatives to improve corporate GHG data availability, consistency and reliability, so that this information can be factored into investment analysis, ownership practices and decision making?

2. Is the government aiming to influence public pension schemes to incorporate climate considerations in their investments? (and if so how?)

What competences remain wholly and solely jurisdiction of Parliament in Westminster without any necessary reference to the EU to allow us to make our own laws?

This is more nonsense from this government. Could Mr M explain why his government chose to back T5 at Heathrow; why their own ministers jet around the world taking entourages of unnecessarily large numbers; why the Speaker, appointed by Labour, encourages his family to fly from and to Scotland when they could travel by train, and gives them Airmiles to do so? Or does the government think the people of the country are stupid and cannot see that this is another method of extracting money from us? His government would be better employed in getting the 'offending nations' of the world are on board - the US springs to mind. And Labour say they are 'listening'!!?

Dear Mr Milliband,

Low carbon means nothing to most people in the UK, and the current "ActonCO2" campaign, like most other calculators, only provides a number which is unempowering.

In our work we are trying to help make carbon 'visible'. We think this lies at the core of the problem.

What do you think the government should be doing to really make carbon 'visible' to ordinary citizens such that it empowers change and action?

Kind Regards,

Fraser Durham

Considering how much utility bills and basic living costs have already risen, how will private companies be prevented from passing on the costs of reducing their carbon footprints to the public?

1.
Given that traffic calming increases the production of carbon dioxide by 50% and 20 Mph Zones by 10% how can you justify apparently supporting the continued introduction of the said schemes if you claim to be doing your bit for the global environment ?

2.
As part of future transport policy would you consider removing traffic calming and scrapping 20 Mph zones as part of a policy to significantly reduce transport emissions?

If the government continues to allow local authorities to introduce traffic calming etc. it may be reasonable to believe that the environment has become simply an excuse for a marketing scam aimed at those with a below average IQ or just poorly educated in science.

Why not show real depth of character and cancel the ridiculous 2012 Olympics? Here is a waste of fuel and energy hardly equaled in the follies of modernity. No one wants London overrun, millions of passenger air miles and massive building not to mention overcrowded and overly expensive London. THAT would be proof the government takes climate change seriously.

Do you think your govt's low carbon policy is consistent with at least maintaining, and preferably increasing, current standards of living?

Does biofuel in the UK keep the middle classes happy whilst causing starvation in the Third World?

Do biofuels, with only two-thirds the calorific value of hydrocarbon based fuels, actually emit more CO2 in the journey from field to filling station?

If a sustainable fuel is found to replace our fossil fuel dependency without harming the environment, will the Government still heap 'green taxes' on it? If not how will the government replace its dependency on these taxes?

Dear David Miliband,

I agree with Fraser Durham's comment above (91) about helping make carbon VISIBLE. Of course it (CO2) is really BRIGHT purple you know, or if it were, we would have seen the sky change colour in our lifetimes - with our smokey PURPLE air fill HAZE bringing a new sunset on humanity.

And why stop with just the 'visual' sense.

Government campaigns COULD help make carbon LOUD (dischordant) pungent (malodourous) toxic (distasteful) etc. When will we start to see campaigns that are on a scale and of an impact that are in keeping with the scale of the challenge ahead. VAST.

Surely an advertising dream.

When we sense CO2, then we will act on CO2.

Dave

If we, the public, are to support the radical actions that you propose, we need to have trust in the basic competence and integrity of the government. How can you convince us that you possess either quality?

One more quick question for David.

Can he explain why HMG did a U-turn on the pledge (that he personally made - and a very good one) that every home in the UK should be issued with a little "real time energy display" device, so that we could see - instantly and conveniently - and for ourselves - how fast our eleccy meters really are spinning at any time.

These devices are superbly effective! Does HMG actually want us to save energy? Or does it rather want to draw off the power of the electricity companies lobby.

This particular U-turn is profoundly demoralising, and frankly, downright stupid... however you look at it... (imho!)

Dave

David, would you be willing to become the next Prime Minister if Gordon Brown were to go? Boris Johnson seems to think you would be the best candidate. What would you do if you were PM?