[ad_1]
Prince Charles: Farming can play a big part in protecting planet
Thousands of scientists from across the globe have urged governments to implement policy changes that will drastically lower CO2 emissions now after new research has found that much of the damage done to our planet is irreversible. According to our readers, it is the Government’s responsibility, and the responsibility of those in charge of major businesses, to invest in renewable energy, rather than this burden being placed on ordinary families.
————————
A reader said: “How about blaming the ones who get rich from selling products like oil that are bad for the planet? It’s all too easy to blame Joe public when in fact it’s a select few who are to blame.”
A huge 83 percent of our readers said they would not be happy to invest £10,000 into greener energy over the next 20 years in order to give their grandchildren a better chance at climate survival, in a poll of 4,162 people held between 12pm August 11 and 10am August 17.
However, it is important to note that some voters may not be able to afford to invest £10,000 over the next 20 years into green energy for their home (£500 per year).
One voter said: “As a pensioner living on my own, I certainly do not have £10k to spend on this.”
Another said: “As most of us don’t have a spare 10k, the answer is NO! Try asking China and India to stop building hundreds of coal power stations.”
In contrast, 12 percent of participants (491 people) said that they would be happy to make the investment for the benefit of future generations.
Boris has high aspirations to reach net zero for Britain by 2050 (Image: Getty)
But ultimately, most readers expressed the view that people in positions of power should be making large-scale switched to renewable energy sources for the entire country.
One reader made a compelling argument. They said: “We now have the technology to exploit renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, tidal, and hydro, and they are rapidly becoming cheaper to convert into useful fuel than fossil fuels are.
“On top of that, renewables are freely available all over the inhabited planet, so why would anyone want to persist in digging and drilling holes into the bowels of the Earth to extract oil, and then spend a fortune on refining and shipping it across the globe?
“Wars are fought over the control and supply of it, only to set fire to the finished products, releasing carbon into the atmosphere and upsetting the Earth’s natural carbon cycle.
“It makes no sense to do so, when there are cleaner, more efficient, cheaper and more widely available alternatives.”
On the other hand, a lot of voters thought that the UK’s efforts to achieve net-zero by 2050 and a “greener Britain” are in vain unless larger countries change their policies too.
A voter remarked: “Without major countries, China, Russia, America, India taking immediate action, one small island of around 68 million will not make any significant changes to climate change. Immediate worldwide action is needed.”
READ MORE: Russian navy enters English Channel
The meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases worldwide, creating more pollution than every form of transport combined.
In fact Livestock and their by-products account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, that’s 51 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions.
The average amount of meat eaten by Britons is almost double the world average, at 226g per day, and if everyone shared the meat-heavy diet of the average American, the world could feed just 2.5 billion of its 7.7 billion people.
But when asked whether readers would be happy to cut down their meat consumption, a large portion of voters, 71.7 percent, said they would not.
Whilst 4.1 percent said they would cut down their meat consumption by three quarters, 8 percent said they would cut down by half, and 7.5 percent said they would cut out one quarter.
A total of 298 voters (7.3 percent) already do not eat meat, and another 1.4 percent said they plan to go vegetarian.
DON’T MISS:
Emmanuel Macron LIVE: French President shamed over ‘inhumane’ response
Joe Biden walks off after 20-minute speech defending US withdrawal…
Miles Routledge evacuated from Kabul as summer holiday got out of hand
The majority of readers were not keen on having to pay for any form of green energy products; 60 percent of people said they would never buy solar panels, 50 percent said they would never buy a green condensing boiler, and 73.4 percent of people said they would never buy an electric car.
One reader commented: “Will it tow my caravan 350 miles without stopping to recharge? Will it recharge in less than 10 mins? If not, then I will not buy one and will use my diesel auto until it falls to pieces.”
An electric car owner remarked: “I have an electric car, and it’s expensive and a little inconvenient, but it does have good acceleration and is cheap to run. I also have a petrol car for long journeys, as I can’t be bothered with the hassle of charging it.”
But some readers had other ideas for families to reduce their carbon footprint as well as helping the environment.
One said: “The way forward is to insulate properly. It’s possible to run a highly insulated house with 20 percent of the fuel needed to heat a poorly insulated house.”
Some readers denied that climate change is caused by humans, that it exists, or that it is anything to worry about.
A climate change denier wrote: “There is no rapid and unprecedented global warming but there is a lot of hot air and lies.”
But another responded: “Current warming is happening more than ten times faster than any known natural cycle for at least a million years. That is rapid and unprecedented.”
[ad_2]
