Profiteering through carbon trading permits Profiteering through carbon trading permits Profiteering through carbon trading permits 11:00 Tuesday 22 December 2015 / Letters Share 0 comments Want more local stories like these, direct to your inbox? SOMEHOW I was not at all surprised to see that the Governor of the Bank of England attended the Paris climate deals. I am sure that big bucks are trading hands on the back of trendy carbon trading permits to “pollute” with carbon dioxide. As I suspected would happen, India will carry on burning coal while we curtail our own use. This allows the carbon share price to soar thus making billions on the global stock markets. Meanwhile, this glorious climate deal will allow the proliferation of “low carbon” nuclear power stations. Whoever would have dreamt that nuclear power would now be labelled as green energy? Acres of forest worldwide will be cut down to provide fuel for our biomass power stations that have replaced the coal. The concept behind biomass has been long forgotten along the blind climate alley. Biomass refers to dead or fallen wood on the ground that may be burnt as a so-called carbon neutral fuel. Biomass does not include deliberately felling forests of trees as is now happening in the name of green energy. Share article Meanwhile, deadly diesel “low carbon” vehicles continue to kill huge numbers worldwide with their noxious particulate emissions. SUSAN THOMAS Oxford

Carbon trading will become world’s biggest commodity Carbon trading will become world’s biggest commodity Carbon trading will become world’s biggest commodity Wednesday 2 December 2015 / Letters Share 0 comments Want more local stories like these, direct to your inbox? SOME readers are voicing concerns as to why we have to close our cheap-to-run and operational coal power stations to divest from fossil fuels and to use dangerous nuclear power and imported Russian gas instead. In London’s financial world, carbon trading is the latest trend. Carbon shares will soon become the world’s biggest commodity market, and the world’s biggest market of stocks and shares. One of the main reasons that all the political parties now endorse this low carbon path is a financial one. Even the Green-sceptic Conservative Party enthusiastically endorses low carbon power. George Osborne said that he wished to protect the low carbon market at all costs as it is worth billions of pounds worldwide. That figure will continue to grow, as developing nations demand more energy that will likely be produced by coal and other carbon heavy sources of fuel. As more international governments start to regulate their country’s emissions, and as more companies start to voluntarily limit their emissions, the demand for available carbon credits will sky-rocket. And so will their price! As for the impact of coal on global warming... Share article In my humble opinion, vested financial and political interest does not work well for impartial science. SUSAN THOMAS

Sir – It is a galling paradox that despite using less energy than in the swinging sixties, hard-pressed consumers are now paying higher utility bills. Clearly in some ways this paying more for less must be a regressive policy. Investing in new nuclear power stations is projected to further exacerbate price rises. The huge nuclear investment start-up costs will be added to consumers’ bills causing meteoric rises in the next decade. A lot of policy errors are contributing to high energy bills and really Government should get a grip on its energy policy. I am not convinced that biomass has been such a great idea either. This is because using trees for power stations has caused catastrophic deforestation in many parts of the world. The editor of the Ecologist agreed with me that the trend for biomass is causing harm to the planet as trees have leaves that reduce pollution. People like the trendy sound of biomass but caution is needed. Coal is not a great fuel, but at least it has no green leaves. Share article In my opinion, it is better to use cheap coal than burning trees which our planet desperately needs. Great Britain is a very windy country so wind power should in theory be an asset. However the turbine design needs to be improved so as not to drain the national grid of energy when they are forced to shut down in high winds. More innovation is needed, but I am sure that our inventive country will eventually get to a solution for cheap and clean long-term energy. Susan Thomas Oxford

Caution over biomass

Climate change reports often get facts wrong

From the Oxford Mail: 

Friday 4 December 2015 / Letters

THE terrible smogs in China are the result of vehicle exhaust particulate pollution and not carbon dioxide emissions as was incorrectly stated by a Channel 4 science newscaster.
Carbon dioxide on its own is a colourless and clear, non toxic gas. I hear a lot of bad science being spouted on the TV news in the wake of the climate talks.
Furthermore, studies have proved that air pollution actually prevents sunlight from reaching us and therefore smogs cool the ambient temperature rather than raise the temperature.
This has been demonstrated repeatedly by volcanic eruptions that emit airborne particulate aerosol matter.
The volcanic eruptions of Mount Pinatubo and Tambora resulted in lower temperatures worldwide – the years without a summer.
Smogs and pollution kill people but should not be confused with pure carbon dioxide emissions since carbon dioxide is both good for plants and ocean life.
Air pollution has been shown to lower rather than raise temperatures.
For example after the 9/11 air attacks all planes were grounded in New York.
Because the skies were clear of hazy aircraft contrails, the sunlight was able to reach unfiltered and the measured temperatures shot up in New York.

I wish the TV science newscasters would try to get their facts right.
The Chinese smogs will lower ambient temperatures and result in respiratory deaths but will not raise global temperatures.

Share article

I am all for clean energy but, if anything, clearer non-polluted skies will lead to greater sunlight radiation reaching Earth and therefore warmer temperatures and boosted crop production.
SUSAN THOMAS
Magdalen Road
Oxford

Sir

I agree with Catherine Bearder MEP that the Lib Dems have done much to promote civil liberties by objecting to Control Orders and various snoopers charters.

We have a  paradoxical dilemma of  upholding civil liberties while protecting  our national security.

Control orders were introduced to protect the public from known terrorists who were made subject of a curfew known as  a control order.

Control Orders have now been abolished.

The known terrorist  and radical cleric Abu Qatada abused the Human Rghts Act to avoid being deported to face charges of bombings in his home country.

He used the ECHR to avoid being deported  to Jordan in a lengthy legal battle at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

This lengthy  court case persuaded our Home Secretary,Theresa May,   to promise a reform of the Human Rights Act so it could no longer be abused by terrorists such as Abu Qatada.

The idea is to protect our national security rather than to deprive individuals of their basic  human rights.

It is question of semantics.

There is undoubtedly a fine balance to protect the innocent individual`s freedoms while at the same time protecting us all from a terrorist atrocity.

There are now more cctv cameras in the UK than any other country and this could be construed as  an invasion of  most law abiding citizens` privacy.

Not long ago I read in the Oxford Mail, that a spy plane was being used by Oxford City Council and some civil liberty groups may feel this contravenes personal freedoms.

It is a contentious issue with pros and cons for both sides of the dilemma of protecting our security versus civil liberty.

SUSAN THOMAS

Sir

it is becoming increasingly rare to find a politician who has  sincere convictions.

Most politicians appear desperate to curry favour with the electorate and change their  fickle opinions according to which way the wind blows.

Therefore when  a  conviction politician comes along things are bound to get lively.

It is hardly surprising then that Jeremy Corbyn has stirred up a hornets nest.
  He is that rare   phenomenon namely a conviction politician as was  my ancestor the  political firebrand, David Lloyd- George.
Lloyd-George was  firm in  his convictions  and this  strategic wizard felt that oppositional political  strategy was the only way to success..
  Now we have Jeremy Corbyn who has  strong convictions and this plainly comes across when he speaks.
Whether his convictions are good for the country or not, people sense that he is sincere.

This is in stark contrast to the likes of Ed Miliband who employed an expensive American spin doctor,  namely David Axelrod.
Axelrod  never even set foot in this country during the election campaign and  he did not have a clue about the germane political issues.

Had Miliband possessed his own  inner convictions he would not have needed to waste £300,000 of Labour donours` money.

So now Jeremy Corbyn has set the cat among the pigeons and the Labour Party is in disarray.

They need to ask themselves an intelligent question.

Do voters wish for an oppositional Party or a pale watered down  imitation of the Party in power?

SUSAN THOMAS