Peter Ainsworth, shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, uses it as his final thrust in damning government policy in a for and against debate with Ruth Kelly, secretary of state for transport, over the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation which comes into force tomorrow.
It remains to congratulate all those concerned for being so far-sighted in their contribution to the exercise, despite the sad fact that real developments appear to be bearing out its worst predictions including, tragically, the extinction of the orang-utan as a species.
Ruth Kelly reminds us that the use of cars and other forms of transport are the UK's third largest source of CO2 emissions and the only one forecast have grown by 2020. Yet reprehensibly the debate on all sides seems to be predicated on the idea that this level of use is both inevitable and unavoidably necessary for reasons unstated, be they economic, social or otherwise.
I would simply like to remind everyone that this presumption is utterly and completely unfounded. Most car use at present is entirely vain and frivolous, could be eliminated absolutely without any effect on economic performance, and arguably with a positive social return were the population only prepared to reject the 'life in the fast lane' as the only mode of living. It is one that has rarely brought happiness and is at the very heart of these devastating problems. It is utterly reprehensible, as well as indicative of the depth of the challenge before us, that both main parties remain utterly supine over this question.
Ironically the same edition headlined the fact that developing nations are unwilling to sign up for the urgently needed replacement to Kyoto Treaty because they are appalled by the lack of progress the developed world has made in cutting its emissions and are 'dismayed' by the lack of leadership shown. This comes from the top: the vehicle of this news is none other than Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC and Nobel laureate.
Who can blame them on this evidence?
And what chance avoiding total meltdown if they do not?
According to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
'if the carbon emissions of China and India continue to grow at the same pace as their economies, mankind would be unable to prevent a critical level of warming.'
That means no chance.
Time to get out of your cars, folks. Right now.
And to persuade everyone else you know to do so too.
For your own preservation, as well as the orang-utan…
The background is well set out in both contributions, which can be found on p26 under 'Biofuels: blueprint for the future?' or at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/14/biofuels.energy
'Rich states failing to lead on emissions, says UN climate chief' can be viewed at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/14/climatechange.carbonemissions
PS
Letter to the Guardian
Having now seen your lead article (“Rich states failing to lead on emissions, says UN climate chief”) would either Ruth Kelly or Peter Ainsworth ("Biofuels: a blueprint for the future?") wish to change their position over their ultimately shabby, supine failure to get us to face up to the obvious – that the days of 'life in the fast lane' are well and truly over. It would seem that it is not only the survival of the urangatan that is at stake, but everyone else's too.
It didn't get printed, inevitably enough. Instead, a few days later they published an editorial to the opposite effect, more or less.
Posts
