By Joe Fortune
The ‘Climate Express’ train travelled 9,000 miles and took over a month to journey between Kyoto and Copenhagen. The stunt was organised by the International Union of Railways (UIC), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the global conservation organisation WWF in order to highlight transport’s influence on climate change.
Symbolic though it was, it does serve to highlight the scale of global transport networks - to travel 9,000 miles on the railways is no mean feat. The demands of the globalised economy have resulted in states racing to deliver transport and infrastructure projects. Academics and the World Bank agree that these projects have together seen the displacement of 15 million people a year and resulted in 90-100 million people living in the cycle of development-induced displacement. This displacement has devastating effects on the politically under -epresented communities involved. In addition to this, numerous NGOs and institutions have highlighted the emission levels and wider environmental impacts of transport and infrastructure development across the globe.
The transport sector as a whole is a major producer of CO2 emissions, already accounting for over one-fifth of global emissions. These emissions are projected to double within just 40 years. The ‘Climate Express’ sought to highlight the role the railways could play in reducing emissions.
The Copenhagen Conference demonstrates the need for all countries to reduce transport emissions. The Labour Government and Party must continue to promote and advocate the need for continued environmental and socially responsible transport development.
Labour has a strong track record of putting significant investment and support into the development of a wide range of local or rural, national and international networks; from cycling and walking through to bus, road, rail (both passenger and freight) and maritime.
Strained economic times have seen the importance of the case for sustainable and fiscally responsible transport management and development grow. Whether the Conservative Party will be able to demonstrate they have the commitment and practical policies to improve this policy area is still very much to be proved.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
The author is probably perfectly sincere- he doubtless believes it. Does he even know that one-fifth of global (man-made) CO2 emission amounts to less than 1% of total CO2 emissions- >95% of which are from entirely natural sources?
I hope none of ours are doing that with the implications of this meeting. Such behaviour is unacceptable.
Don't be so naive.. You don't really believe half Africa is there for climate change.
They are only there for the money..
( and yes I am serious: and I suspect correct. When you see how most of African rulers live...and think..)
As Russian occupies 1/8th of the world's land mass and 1/4th of the Northern Hemisphere land mass, this temperature data is the cornerstone of all the IPCC claims of CO2 forcing the climate.
So that's Russia, Australasia, US... where else has this data been manipulated?
It's over. Simple as that. These 'scientific' fools have trashed the science, no science, no politics.
As for the Third World, it's not as if they have a fantastic record of spending money correctly and not lining their leader's pockets. The two biggest threats to life in the Third World are the lack of food and lack of medicines not global warming.
A lack of food could be resolved by the politics of trade tariffs, end CAP in the EU would cost absolutely nothing to us, food becomes cheaper, Africa can trade with the EU.
Perhaps to resolve this, the First World might like to tell the Third World to sort out their democracies, stop buying weapons and killing each other and hammer out the corruption.
Then investing money into the Third World might make sense.
Don't know where you picked this up, but The Register is running with this story as well.
The problem with the 'scientific' fools is that they have behaved more like religous zealots than scientists. To be honest anybody at the CRU involved in this should be turfed out of any learned society and made to redo their sodding degree.
The clearly learnt bugger all the first time round.
WUWT has the actual report albeit in Cyrillic, one of my Russian colleagues had a quick look and said it has very strong language in it that CRU have been selective with the data.
Russia is very proud of its scientific heritage and they treat bad science with a very mocking distain. CRU just got both barrels and the bear trap.
"Sue Dawson, a geomorphologist from the University of Dundee, has been studying how and why the coast line is constantly changing.
She said: "One of the key premises behind a lot of the study of the past is that the past is a key to the present and the future.
"So we can look to times when maybe environmental changes have been much more rapid and much more catastrophic in some instances and people have survived and adapted and it's that adaptation to climate change is one of the key things that we need to get to grips with."
The experts said the seabed around Orkney may be littered with man-made structures. (from the BBC)
I live in a rural area of Scotland where CO2 production is way below that critical mark. Our biggest producers of greenhouse gas are the bovines and ovines on the moor and grasslands. All these green taxes inflicted to 'save the world' make no sense to us why should we pay 75p a litre in tax on diesel and high road tax on four by fours we actually need to do our work just because of selfish town dwellers and Chelsea tractors?
Worse, these same town dwellers can better afford the high road tax on four by fours and will be paying over 10p less a litre for their diesel.
I looked at putting a micro hydro plant into my local burn to provide for my and a few houses round about using existing power lines, by the time the Quango's and agencies had taken their cut, done their feasibility and risk studies and set their license fees, a set up cost of £ 10,000 had become £25,000.
Is that an appropriate message from a Government concerned about encouraging the use re-useables? (ps: the £25K was after the £3K grant that was available was taken off. pps: the average income of our neighbours is £16K - £10K was doable £25K is not).
There are still a few days left to turn things around, but for that to happen leaders like Obama need to raise their game. He won't act unless we do - across the world people are piling on the pressure for Obama to act boldly for a strong and fair global deal.
Let's make sure UK citizens add to that pressure: email Obama and the US ambassador in London now: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/obama-lead-copenhagen
Alex - the problem is regular posters are not buying it - The Chinese have now sided with the 77 developing nations to tell the conference to take a running jump.
The scientific argument for CO2 as THE cause is unstitching rapidly - it is a hypothesis masquerading as a theory. The only problem for the rest of us is the politicians have bought it as scientific fact hook, line and sinker and have spent a heck of a lot of our money on these phoney conferences that go nowhere (See opening paragraph for the reason).
We know the earth has warmed by 0.8C over the last 150 years, we know what the impact of this will be in terms of rising sea levels and the potential impact on weather systems, we know we need to do something about it all to prevent further human catastrophe's and that re-useable energy sources make sense but to think CO2 reduction is going to be some sort Fairy Godmother's magic wand is facile in the extreme. It's like beleiving in Santa Claus.
This article appears confused.
You want more rail travel, but also don't want any new infrastructure to support this goal.
Also, I'll be mightily impressed if any train made it all the way from Kyoto to any other nearby country, let alone to Copenhagen. I think flying or a sea journey was involved, which no doubt compromises the effect of saying it was done by rail.
As for 'Labour has a strong track record of putting significant investment and support into the development of a wide range of local or rural, national and international networks.'
Nice assertion. Name some instances to support all four of these.
Personally I find the 'development' of rural transport a joke. I know someone born and bred in rural Suffolk who has a ridiculous letter from a Mr John Prescott. His reply to her concerns about a cut back in the local bus service, was that she shouldn't have moved there if she couldn't drive.
So basically no support for rural services and disbelef that anyone living in the countryside can't afford an executive home or farmhouse, and a couple of Jags. Not being able to drive, well clearly only poor people live in cities according to this moron. And council houses exist only in boroughs.
As an aside.
How any government tolerated having this apeth in it staggers me. Worse still, we still have to put up with the hypocrit telling us we should cut back whilst he swans off to conferences purely as an ego trip.
The sooner Hull dissappears under the North Sea, the sooner people there will realise they were short changed by idiots like this man, who seems to think there is no point in coastal defences, when sea levels are rising.
I am getting seriously p#ssed off about green issues. (apologies for the rudeness)
Lots and LOTS of words. Reams of paper. Gigawatts of computer time. Terabytes of words.
And what about actions?
Well, we are extending Heathrow.
Forget what the Conservatives say.. (I don't believe any politicians as they are all liars).
It's what people DO.
So far I see lots and lots of Government words, promises of more money to other countries.. and zip real action in the UK.
Cynical? No realistic.
Climate chnagers in this Government have zero credibility. Zero. They support the most gross waste of energy ever that man can do- a war. And expanding airports.
They have zippo credibility.
It's all words.
And yes, I do recycle, have added insulation, run a 119gm CO2 car, cut my mileage, grow some of my own food, monitor my energy so I do care and act.
Politicians are lying hypocrites on this issue (see expenses) - and until they act differently this whole issue in the UK is tainted.
Trains I cannot afford to use the train it's the most expensive way to travel in the UK it should be the cheapest, but then again government and companies would not make billions in profits.
The whole green issue is pathetic you can offset Carbon emission by selling the dam thing, How can you sell emissions. We live in a world in which leaders fly all over the place and then tell us not to use you car.
I just cannot take it seriously it's childish silly and pathetic, my council decided not to put lights on the Christmas tree this year as a green issues, but it has placed multi coloured lights on the Town hall using spot lights costing 100% more then Christmas tree lights.
I cannot be bothered and as for Brown I know they think perhaps Charles smell but why the hell did they not travel in the same bloody plane.