MP to propose climate change law

Martin Galea De Giovanni

Sep 10th 2008, 11:42

@Tyrrell: ..perhaps, but the "balance of the earth" that you are referring to might not be compatible with the one suitable for the human species....

- not eating meat is not as impractical as you make it sound ....

-well the Chinese are saying "Why not build more power stations?... look at the Westerners ...driving huge SUVs and in the case of the US, using 8 times more energy per capita than an average Chinese citizen!" ) ......

James A. Tyrrell

Sep 10th 2008, 01:11

@Martin Galea De Giovanni. Very good point actually. The crazy thing about the earth though is that it tends to balance things out for itself. As the planet heats up so do the seas. As the seas heat up they expand and therefore absorb more carbon dioxide. The other thing about carbon dioxide is that it produces more plant growth which in turn absorbs more carbon dioxide.

@M Camenzuli . Another good point although impractical. Prefer a steak to a lettuce leaf any day! Cows actually do more to promote global warming than all the cars, bikes, trucks, boats and planes in the world put together. Of course we could drive less and not take holidays abroad etc but then a lot of countries including Malta would suffer. Anyway, what difference would it make if I for instance cancelled my holiday to Malta every year when the Chinese are opening two 100MW coal fired power stations every week?

Martin Galea De Giovanni

Sep 9th 2008, 23:56

@M. Camenzuli - this is not a debate about your favourite kazin - partisan politics should stay out of this issue (and all other issues, if we want this country to move forward)

..and its not just any other "British" report - it comes from a speech by the UN Climate Change Chief ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7600005.stm

M Camenzuli

Sep 9th 2008, 21:58

A scientific report in Britain has recently concluded that the best thing we can do against climate change is to eat less meat.
Apparently, cows emit large volumes of methane gas from both ends and methane gas is a hundred times more damaging to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
We should also drive less, walk and bike more and shun air travel.
I believe Labour supporters will take to this new way of life with enthusiasm and alacrity.

Martin Galea De Giovanni

Sep 9th 2008, 21:45

@ Tyrrell: What you say is a fact, but the melting of the sea ice has its own repercussions ... it creates a feedback effect whereby less light (energy) from the sun is reflected back to space (hence changing the albedo effect of planet earth) ...which in turn adds to the warming of the planet.

James A. Tyrrell

Sep 9th 2008, 20:35

@P.Schembi. Given the fact that unlike the South Pole the majority of the North Pole is ocean based, the giagantic block of ice you refer to will have no effect whatsoever on sea levels. If you remember your laws of physics from school they teach us that a body floating in a liquid displaces a volume of liquid equal to the weight of the floating body. Therefore when floating ice melts sea levels stay the same.

Martin Galea De Giovanni

Sep 9th 2008, 17:23

Friends of the Earth Malta has been collecting signatures from the public since last February. The petition is asking the Maltese government to pass a bill to reduce the country's annual emissions of carbon dioxide year on year.

Please sign the petition (and more info) here : http://www.foemalta.org/bigask

Edward Bartolo

Sep 9th 2008, 15:28

Emissions and Global Warming will not be reduced by making more taxes, better known as, eco-taxes. To reduce global warming, CO2 must be reduced from the athmosphere. The so called, renewable energy sources, are not cost efficient. From the point of view of low income band of the population, these sources are a source of frustration and unnecessary expenses. Besides that, renewable energy sources, are so limited in their output that they can only supply a small percentage of what is needed.

In my opinion, the solution lies in using using nuclear energy and nuclear fusion. The effort should be directed at developing fusion - the target date when it may be available is 2050.

Why should it take so long? My point is to place more effort in that direction and to use the eco-taxes to finance research.

P.Schembi

Sep 9th 2008, 13:10

@malsey. And what would your undead party would do if ever elected in government? From where to get the money? As if it isn't the nation's problem global warming. Haven't you heard the news last week that a gigantic block of ice broke off at the North Pole due to the speed up of melting and rise and temperature? More like that and we'll be facing a very harsh problem in the near future.

C Cassar

Sep 9th 2008, 13:04

Does anyone think global warming won't hit low-income and middle-class people? What will happen to our economy if tourists start to shun the Mediterranean because the climate is too hot or the sea is full of jellyfish? What will we do if predictions about rising sea levels come true? Wake up people. Global warming is not just someone else's problem - it's our problem too.

Paul Barrett

Sep 9th 2008, 12:26

Quote from "Dad's Army" (BBC TV)
"Werr Doomed, all Doomed" - needs to be said with a Scottish accent and a downcast look on your face.

Malcolm Seychell

Sep 9th 2008, 12:06

@edward bartolo

Of course they did. They will pass on the burden on the middle class, and hard working people like they always do.

Gavril Flores

Sep 9th 2008, 12:04

@ Bartolo

Could you be so kind to explain us how reduction of emmissions can influence badly people with lower wages??

Edward Bartolo

Sep 9th 2008, 11:47

Did the labour party consider that this hypothetical law may impact very badly the lower wage band of the population?