|

Last week, British Council Scotland hosted the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband and ran a live video link up between climate advocates in Edinburgh and their counterparts in Kyoto, Edinburgh's twin city. The discussion focused on the diplomatic work happening around climate change and the need to maintain ambition ahead of the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen in December.
The Foreign Secretary spoke about the importance of young people and their need to question and pioneer action on climate change within their communities. He highlighted how young people were important in pushing through positive messages against a general apathy that can exist in society on tackling climate change issues.
Questions from the participants covered topics ranging from Japan's new mitigation target to the viability of a profitable low carbon economy and the ability of the EU member states to work together on climate change. But the Foreign Secretary had his work cut out for him when it came to nuclear power.
Given that a new generation of nuclear reactors would not deliver the lower level of emissions necessary to combat climate change, Mr Miliband was asked if he believed they were a waste of time and money.
Jamie Auldsmith, one of last year’s Climate Advocates, followed on to suggest that the UK government should be directing investment earmarked for nuclear power to developing renewable energy and emphasised that Scotland had sufficient natural resources to provide more than 80 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs.
The Foreign Secretary told him that the government was investing in renewables, but they required heavy subsidies, which nuclear power did not. “No one is saying we should have 100 per cent nuclear,” Mr Miliband added, but warned that if the fraction it currently provided was removed from the energy mix, it would be difficult to replace it with efficient energy.
Looking ahead to the UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, advocate Rory Crawford picked up on the Jezersko principles and identified three key outcomes we would like to see:
The first, legally binding targets across the board. the UK is good on this front and other nations need to follow suit.
The second, that we need a sectoral approach to emissions reduction to prevent nations from exporting their footprint by importing 'polluting products' from other nations that do not have emissions reductions targets.
And third, that we an alternative to GDP as a measure for a nation’s success, proposing quality of life, happiness and environmental health. it is obscene that we measure a nation's success by how much they consume. Climate change is a systemic problem and requires a systemic response.
He finished with a quote from Robert Kennedy who said that:
“Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising...and the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play...the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

|