Can I firstly thank everyone who took the time to respond to my article. There were many interesting comments, the majority of which were from those who recognise the gravity of the battle against climate change, and a handful from those who - disappointingly - still seek to deny that it is caused by human activity.

Climate change is not a myth peddled by green propagandists; there is no shady ulterior motive behind the campaign to stop environmental destruction.

"Lack of evidence" does not explain why world leaders have so far failed to act; lack of political will is the problem. As long as GDP is relied upon to measure a nation’s success, political leaders will not fully recognise and act upon the cost of unfettered economic expansion on the environment.

It is the US administration’s refusal to do anything that might reduce US citizens’ "right" to consume as much as they want which hampered efforts at the Bali talks.

When it comes to the European Union, one commentator labelled its institutions as "unsustainable" and thus in a poor position to preach about global warming. This is particularly with regards to its "two-seat" Brussels-Strasbourg system, the absurd merry-go-round of European Parliament sessions to which I drew attention in my article.

But despite the damaging impact of this process, EU institutions can produce more than "hot air and paperwork" on the environment.

MEPs are well placed to exert pressure on Europe to set firm targets on carbon emissions and green regulations - it just remains for individual governments to take them seriously.

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), rightly condemned by one reader as a "fiasco", is certainly an initiative plagued by doubts and loopholes which allow sectors to buy their way out of trouble. As currently designed, it will completely fail to reduce emissions. Furthermore, the UK’s Climate Change Bill, however admirable its intentions, sets out hopelessly inadequate targets.

In response to one reader’s comment about "new technologies" to replace fossil fuels, the Green Party’s position is clear - nuclear power is simply not an option.

Nuclear power is dangerous, inefficient and incredibly expensive. Just imagine what we could achieve if the government spent the billions earmarked for Trident on generating renewable energy?

Highlighting the positive changes that we need to make is the challenge facing campaigners and politicians.

A zero carbon future doesn’t have to be a future of shivering around a candle in a cave - it can be a comfortable and more secure one.

The policies we need for an improved quality of life are precisely the policies we need to tackle climate change.

 

BBC Online - Writers Write Back