The environmental content of David Cameron’s Conference speech

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………”.   Please check against delivery here.

And comment here, here, here, here.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Get email notifications of new blog posts

Registration confirmation will be emailed to you.


15 Replies to “The environmental content of David Cameron’s Conference speech”

  1. I tried Ctrl-f "environment" - no hits. Ctrl-f "countryside" one hit, he said only 9% of the country is built on, implying that we get on and cover the rest of it!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  2. Hi Mark

    I read your blog fairly regularly and enjoy it.

    I do have a question for you, and this isn't meant to b personally insulting, but to raise the issue.

    With all your talk about the environment, climate change, resources, etc. do you worry about your own impact?

    It is clear from the blog and images that you are a large chap. I would suggest that you consume more than is necessary to survive and indeed be very comfortable. Don't you think your food consumption is as much an environmental issue as the consumption of other resources? How can I tak you seriously on these issues when it is clear that you over consume?

    This week it was suggested that their might be a Government "fat tax" - wouldn't it be fair to tax people who consume a greater amount of food than other in the name of the environment?

    I'd really like to know what you think.

    Dom

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    1. Dominic - welcome! Please provide a photo of yourself! Perfectly fair point and having seen my doctor earlier this week one that I may take a bit more seriously in future. You do need to take lifetime environmental impact into account and being overweight probably means that my heavy footprint will be treading the Earth for less time, so there are swings and roundabouts, I guess. Maybe there should be a tax on height - I'm 6'3" - and another one on belt sizes. See Saturday's blog for one contribution I do make to keeping my food consumption related footprint down. Also I can say that home energy use (solar panels on the roof), car use and aviation emissions are really quite low if taken over the last five years or so. But I do not claim perfection in any regard. A few fewer beers would probably be a good first step for me. I will do a few calculations and blog about this at some later date.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
      1. Sorry for the late reply, I've been computerless.

        I'm 6 foot tall and 12 stone. I used to be 16 stone but made a big effort to get down to a proper weight.

        I hadn't realised that becuase I now eat sensibly and don't over consume food, I can drive more. Surely that is the extension I can make to you argument?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  3. The government's "fat-tax" is another example of their short-sighted, clutching at band-wagon policies. Consuming the world's resources and the tax-payer's hard-earned funds is hardly singularly proportionate to an individuals waist-size. I certainly worry about the impact of hot-air from politicians and their impact on our climate though 😉

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  4. Interestingly, this is the most that Cameron has ever said about the environment. And it's certainly the most eloquent speech I've ever heard him make on the subject 😉

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  5. Oh - and Dom - you're missing an important point: Mark relies on his physique to make a living. Didn't you know that he's the bloke off the Go Compare ads?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  6. Mark, you're a bit too harsh on the PM. He did mention 'green' twice.

    Once when saying that Labour had apologised for 'failing to go green' - had they? I must have missed that one.

    And then when he mentioned 'the new economy we're building: leading in advanced manufacturing, technology, life sciences, green engineering'. No, I don't know what that means, either.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  7. OK so the PM did not include environment - do you consider that it should be top of his worry list? I suggest that there are more important issues troubling all of us at the moment. I suggest that the only people able to worry about environment are less affected by the current crisis. They have time to worry about the environment.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    1. Birdseye - you may be right - and that'swhat's wrong with the world. Whilst environmental matters are seen as lower priority we will keep trashing the world in an unvilised manner.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  8. Agree with Birdseye,we are all paying it seems £300 each family extra for electric so that we are perhaps greener although taking everything into account we almost certainly are not greener as we have to pay to stop them producing electric at times,other times no electric from them when most needed,all the materials for making them and roads to them,land fill at end of life plus we need other production on standby for when theydo not produce.In the meantime while our producers of all things for export and home consumtion are struggling with all these green costs USA and China and other polluters are not doing there share and so they must be laughing at our stupidity at putting ourselves at such disadvantage.
    Then it turns out if we can believe experts that one volcanic eruption puts out more emmissions than the whole UK puts out in several years.
    Of course we need to do our bit but come on the whole world needs to share the load.
    The mad thing is it seems to be foreign firms getting massive subsidies and profits from these wind farms and in this instance absolutely no reason for subsidies.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.