ChatterBank4 mins ago
Climate Change Is An Issue Of National Security.
10 Answers
http://
/// Criticising David Cameron for appearing to backtrack on his commitment to the environmental cause, he calls on senior figures in all parties to unite behind the scientific evidence that climate change is a key factor in extreme weather. Failure to do so, he warns, will have catastrophic consequences. ///
Talk is easy, what is Miliband doing either in his suggestion for unity across the parties, (when he is already trying to tun this into political gesturing) or regarding climate change?
If climate change is the cause, (and this is debatable), it is a world wide problem and if large polluters such as the US and China don't get their act together what difference is a little island like the UK going to make?
I like this bit.
/// "We have always warned that climate change threatens national security because of the consequences for destabilisation of entire regions of the world, 'MASS MIGRATION OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE' and conflict over water or food supplies. ///
Could it be that our Mr Milliband is actually admitting that mass migration is a problem?
/// Criticising David Cameron for appearing to backtrack on his commitment to the environmental cause, he calls on senior figures in all parties to unite behind the scientific evidence that climate change is a key factor in extreme weather. Failure to do so, he warns, will have catastrophic consequences. ///
Talk is easy, what is Miliband doing either in his suggestion for unity across the parties, (when he is already trying to tun this into political gesturing) or regarding climate change?
If climate change is the cause, (and this is debatable), it is a world wide problem and if large polluters such as the US and China don't get their act together what difference is a little island like the UK going to make?
I like this bit.
/// "We have always warned that climate change threatens national security because of the consequences for destabilisation of entire regions of the world, 'MASS MIGRATION OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE' and conflict over water or food supplies. ///
Could it be that our Mr Milliband is actually admitting that mass migration is a problem?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It is only a short time ago that Cameron ditched Green taxes on energy bills because it was a popular thing to do. Rather than deal wirh huge profiteering by the cartels supplying our gas and electric, he cut the tax that was being used to insulate homes, renew inefficient boilers and encourage lower useage.
Cameron isn't interested in the environment. The first thing his Government did when they took power was slash the budget for the environment.
Of course mass migration is a problem, Miliband and any sane politician will admit that. But Miliband was warning about mass immigration being forced on populations because lands have become barren or flooded due to the changing weather. That kind of unplanned migration is not good for anyone.
It is up to the developed world to lead on reducing emissions. Eventually nations like China will clean up their act. The contribution of all Europe meeting reduced emission targets is not a waste of time. The idea that it is pointless if others continue to pollute is a lame excuse.
Cameron isn't interested in the environment. The first thing his Government did when they took power was slash the budget for the environment.
Of course mass migration is a problem, Miliband and any sane politician will admit that. But Miliband was warning about mass immigration being forced on populations because lands have become barren or flooded due to the changing weather. That kind of unplanned migration is not good for anyone.
It is up to the developed world to lead on reducing emissions. Eventually nations like China will clean up their act. The contribution of all Europe meeting reduced emission targets is not a waste of time. The idea that it is pointless if others continue to pollute is a lame excuse.
-- answer removed --
If you cut funding for flood defences you shouldn't be surprised when those defences fail.
The Environment Agency was set up under John Major. Under Osborne's spending review its budget was slashed. People warned that would damage its ability to predict and managed river flooding and so it has.
// Environment secretary Owen Paterson insisted that cuts to 550 flood prevention, warning and recovery jobs at the Environment Agency (EA) – splashed on by the Telegraph last week, though Eye readers read about them last year – are somehow being made “with the intention of protecting frontline services concerned with floods”. “This government is spending more than all preceding governments on flood defences,” he added. It should be but it isn’t.
Things were already bad under Labour. In 2007, official figures showed the EA missed its target of keeping just 63 percent of England’s existing flood defences up to scratch (Eye 1187); and the National Audit Office said it would take an extra £150m a year just to reach the target. But since the coalition came to power in 2010, far from tackling the flood defence backlog it has actually spent even less on flood defences.
A briefing paper last year found a 6 percent overall fall in central government funding for flood and coastal defence during the 2011-15 spending review period. Even the extra £120m announced in November 2012 – after it was revealed that 294 flood defence schemes across England were on hold after never receiving funding they’d been promised – didn’t bring spending back up to even 2010 levels. //
http://
The Environment Agency was set up under John Major. Under Osborne's spending review its budget was slashed. People warned that would damage its ability to predict and managed river flooding and so it has.
// Environment secretary Owen Paterson insisted that cuts to 550 flood prevention, warning and recovery jobs at the Environment Agency (EA) – splashed on by the Telegraph last week, though Eye readers read about them last year – are somehow being made “with the intention of protecting frontline services concerned with floods”. “This government is spending more than all preceding governments on flood defences,” he added. It should be but it isn’t.
Things were already bad under Labour. In 2007, official figures showed the EA missed its target of keeping just 63 percent of England’s existing flood defences up to scratch (Eye 1187); and the National Audit Office said it would take an extra £150m a year just to reach the target. But since the coalition came to power in 2010, far from tackling the flood defence backlog it has actually spent even less on flood defences.
A briefing paper last year found a 6 percent overall fall in central government funding for flood and coastal defence during the 2011-15 spending review period. Even the extra £120m announced in November 2012 – after it was revealed that 294 flood defence schemes across England were on hold after never receiving funding they’d been promised – didn’t bring spending back up to even 2010 levels. //
http://
Of course the Mail peice is an hatchet job designed to deflect the blame from Osborne.
So they may (that is debatable) have wasted £30K. That is a tiny figure. Do you really think that £30 grand would pay for the the flood prevent work need? The audit office said £150million extra (on rheir previous uncut budget) was needed.
So they may (that is debatable) have wasted £30K. That is a tiny figure. Do you really think that £30 grand would pay for the the flood prevent work need? The audit office said £150million extra (on rheir previous uncut budget) was needed.
Gromit
/// So they may (that is debatable) have wasted £30K. That is a tiny
figure. ///
The £30,000 was for just sponsoring Birmingham's Gay Pride festival, what about the other monies spent unnecessarily?
/// Of course the Mail peice is an hatchet job designed to deflect the blame from Osborne. ///
Why would the Mail do that, unlike the Left-Wing press, who support the Left-Wing, the Mail is not slow in criticising Tory Ministers or the Party.
/// So they may (that is debatable) have wasted £30K. That is a tiny
figure. ///
The £30,000 was for just sponsoring Birmingham's Gay Pride festival, what about the other monies spent unnecessarily?
/// Of course the Mail peice is an hatchet job designed to deflect the blame from Osborne. ///
Why would the Mail do that, unlike the Left-Wing press, who support the Left-Wing, the Mail is not slow in criticising Tory Ministers or the Party.
It's not funding that is the problem with the EX. They are more concerned with saving newts etc and we're happy to try and return marshes back to wildlife.
To try and blame it all on cuts is nuts, as with most civil service bodies they refuse to get more efficient instead opting to cut front line staff and services.
To try and blame it all on cuts is nuts, as with most civil service bodies they refuse to get more efficient instead opting to cut front line staff and services.
Ymb
The EA cut 550 jobs and the result was they could no longer do the work that needed to be done. The wetland Nature Reserve was a condition put on Bristol Ports when they built on an existing wetland area when they expanded. The got planning permission as long as they created a similar wetland site. So land at Steart Peninsula nearby was let to flood to make a new habitat for wildlife. The Port and EU provided most of the money, the EA did the work.
The EA cut 550 jobs and the result was they could no longer do the work that needed to be done. The wetland Nature Reserve was a condition put on Bristol Ports when they built on an existing wetland area when they expanded. The got planning permission as long as they created a similar wetland site. So land at Steart Peninsula nearby was let to flood to make a new habitat for wildlife. The Port and EU provided most of the money, the EA did the work.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.