The UK has an impressive stance on carbon emissions, it is aiming for a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. This isn't due to altruism or noblesse, but out of self interest, Britain is an island, much of it low lying, we don't want to loose our capital under the waves due to thermal expansion of the seas, or a volume increase from the melting Greenland ice sheet! As The UK`s Chief Scientific advisor, Sir David King, pointed stated " Climate Change is the most severe problem that we face today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism". Tony Blair apparently agrees in a speech last year he referred to climate change as "What I believe to be the worlds greatest environmental challenge".

referring to a report by the Royal commission on Environmental Protection Tony Blair again had all the words, "The RCEP`s report on energy concluded that to make it`s contribution to tackling climate change the UK needed to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions 60% by 2050. This implies a massive change in the way we produce and use energy. We are committed to this change". A conference of the worlds to climatologists met in Exeter at the world renowned Hadley climate centre during 2004, to debate the science that the RCEP report was based on. The 60% reduction target is the global reduction required by 2050 to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere at 450ppm, which was at the time expected to result in the global mean temperature increase being limited to 2 degrees Celcisus which is widely taken as a maximum tolerable level of climate change (clearly this level is debatable). In the event it was found that the earth is loosing its ability to act as a carbon sink, i.e isn't removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as quickly as it has hitherto done. The carbon cuts required of developed countries, to allow India and china some scope for development i.e catching up with western consumption patterns in emissions per capita is thierfore aroud 70-80%.

The aviation white paper by the government could therefore be predicted to clamp down on the ever increasing use of aviation, the most carbon intensive activity most people ever do. For example a return trip to Australia uses around 3 tones of carbon per person! Whereas an average car may emit about 6 tones of carbon a year. The scientific board set up to provide reliable climate change information (the IPCC) however state that due to altitude and contrail formation each tone of carbon dioxide emitted by a plain "acts like" 2.7 tones emitted at ground level! Also aviation is by in large a leisure pursuit (3/4 flights) whereas most people need cars to some extent for commuting to work. According to the government white paper, "aviation has increased fivefold over the last 30 years and is projected to be between 2 and 3 times its current level by 2030". So that prediction cant be allowed surely Well "Britain's continuing success as a place in which to invest and do business depends crucially on the strength of our international transport links" so it starts to look like they are going to go ahead with the building of new airports. However they do state that, "we have recognized that simply building more and more capacity to meet demand would have a major, and unacceptable, environmental impact and would not be a sustainable approach". The governments environmental "watchdog" (the Environmental Audit committee) however disagree with the department for transport (DfT) saying "The aviation white paper actively promotes a huge growth in air travel over the next 30 years", and goes on "The DfT has implicitly adopted a predict and provide approach". So how do the government reconcile their target for 60% reduction in carbon dioxide with the growth in aviation being allowed They don't! The environmental audit committee find that if emissions increase on the scale predicted by the DfT the UK`s 60% target will be "meaningless and unachievable" suggesting that a 35% decrease would be as good as could be obtained. This is painting a rosy (sic) picture indeed. The reality was recently pointed out in a house of lords paper on energy efficiency that temporarily but justifiably, strayed off-target mentioning the aviation issue "As the house of commons EAC has repeatedly argued, the projected growth in air travel in the coming decades means that emissions from this source...could entirely negate the saving made in other areas"!

In conclusion, I believe that the government is "greenwashing". Undoubtedly it is aware of climate change but does not see it as a central issue. Tony Blair said during a talk only last year "If there is one message I would like to leave with you, and with the British people today it is one of urgency". Apart from the fact we can see a divergence of the governments policy from the track indicative of urgency and commitment, we have another reason not to believe the spin. Lord Whitty, former defra minister of only 2 years gone, is now in the house of lords, and he is not a happy man! In a recent debate on energy efficeincy he expressed his frustration at the ambivalence and general lack of urgency in the governments climate change policy. "My frustration was not because I disagreed with the broad aims of the government policies. My frustration was with the [lack of] priority accorded to the issue [Climate Change] and the [poor] level of co-ordination" I think we know what he means by co-ordination! Not much point carrying out a climate change program at the department for the environment if the department for transport comes along and encourages the airlines to destroy you're achieved emission cuts!