This is the last Green Column I'll be writing, at least for a while, so I've decided to take a look back, from the future. From 19th February 2059.

Dear Billy,

Age and illness are conspiring, I'm afraid. I've only got a short time left. I know you're still young, but I won't be around when you're older to explain what happened.

Firstly, I should tell you no-one expected this. I dare say you're used to the cold – I'm not, even though it's been this way for 30 years. Some of us had suspected the Gulf Stream might stop. It relied on a ‘conveyer’ action, and switched off when the fresh water of the Arctic ice melted and diluted it. It’s funny, people actually thought Britain was going to be as hot as Morocco after global warming. Some were even looking forward to it!

The main thing I want to say is ‘sorry’.  The earth I inherited was rich with opportunity. Yours should have been too. We've left you a mess, and sadly there's not much you can do about it except wait a millennia or two until the planet sorts itself out.

I want to try and explain the ‘what’ and ‘why’.  The 'what' is history.  You know most of it:  the earth warmed because we burned too much fossil fuel too quickly. But you need to understand the planet was programmed to absorb CO2 emissions harmlessly. Trouble was we burned so much oil and coal so quickly, that the planet's filters just sort of got blocked.

We knew about the problem, but the global economy was built on burning fossil fuels, and the Big Money was so scared of getting poor that it stopped governments from taking the action necessary to let the filters unblock.  Some people called that time the Age of Stupid.

Once the warming reached 2 degrees centigrade it was too late. By around 2030 or so we were well beyond that and the world was really starting to suffer: droughts, fires, hurricanes, floods – things that had always happened, but the frequency was getting noticed and a lot of people were dying in all kinds of places where they hadn't died before.

So at last we got the global treaty people had been working on since, gosh, back in the early 2000s. It was too late of course. Didn’t make a scrap of difference. By that stage the world had got itself trapped inside a hundred different feedback loops. 

It was these feedback loops we didn’t understand – that’s why some environmentalists thought global warming would take 50 years to go critical, and some thought 100. But already by 2030 the Arctic ice had gone and the sea was absorbing more heat. The Tundra had released its gases. The last rainforests had started to die. The deserts were spreading. (Did you know people used to live in Australia?) And having reached this stage, there was no turning back.

So then, 'why'? The answer’s simple: politics and money. And yes, ordinary people were naive, but they were manipulated. It was Big Money that wanted to keep burning the oil and coal, and they scared the politicians into letting them.

In some places, like the USA, Big Money was just too powerful. The US never got to grips with the problem. Hard to believe now that the USA was the single biggest economy in the world at one time – but everything they did was built on oil and coal. The country just ground to a halt. China surprised us all by suddenly leading the race to adapt – that's why they're the only real economy left. Britain played a good game; always did. Not a ‘big’ player, but a ‘clever’ player. They started the global transition; won points for that.

But the biggest problem was that back in the early 2000s Big Money controlled most of the press. The Big Money elite thought climate change was a conspiracy, so each day their news outlets pumped lies and misinformation around the world – and because people believed the news, they questioned the science, even though the science was as certain as science can be that 'the threat' existed. It seems unbelievable that people chose to believe journalists and PR-men over scientists – but that’s how stupid we were.

If more people had believed in climate change earlier the politicians might have done something. If more people had demanded action in the first two decades of the 21st Century the politicians might have been braver and we might have stopped the climate from changing.

I’m sorry we didn’t.  I’m sorry the land is ravaged and the grass is brown. I’m sorry you can’t see the sky because the clouds are never-ending. I’m sorry about the wind and rain. But, Billy, I just wanted you to know that we tried. Some of us tried. 

Isle of Man Friends of the Earth can be found at http://www.foe.org.im

Pound signs have already started flashing in the eyes of savvy farmers who’ve spotted that the turbines of an on-shore wind farm have to go somewhere.  Land rents and access rights could bring in quite a chunk of cash for landowners lucky enough to host the wind turbines on their patch.  At a time when the red meat derogation’s about to be lost and when farmers are still adjusting to decoupled financial support, this money, earned from helping harvest the wind, could make the difference between profit and loss in any given year. 

But that’s big wind, and only a few lucky farmers will reap the rewards. 

With microgeneration – the harvesting of small-scale energy from systems such as wind, solar PV, ground source heat pumps, biomass, hydro, and anaerobic digestion – all farmers on the Isle of Man could benefit.  Or at least they could if the MEA would play ball and offer them a decent Feed-In Tariff (FiT).

Last April new FiTs were introduced in the UK to create a sustainable market for microgeneration and to drive down the price of home-generating equipment.  They’ve achieved this and micropower is suddenly big business.

Many UK farmers now have 25-year deals to grow their own energy and sell it at a profit to the national grid.  For example, a farmer selling solar PV-generated electricity can earn up to 40p per unit – while on the Isle of Man they’d be paid a paltry four pence. 

When the Finance Sector was created the Island made a strategic decision not to join the EU, which meant opting out of EU farming subsidies. At the time Manx farmers were promised faithfully they’d always be supported in ways that guaranteed a level playing field with their UK counterparts – in other words the Treasury would match the support given to UK farmers.

But the level playing field (which became a rutted track when Steam Packet freight prices started to rise) is now a dirty great swamp. If I were a Manx farmer I’d be hopping mad. 

UK farmers are using the extra cash earned from harvesting electricity to supplement poor field-gate prices and to reinvest. Manx farmers are missing out – big time. 

The Manx NFU is still one of the most powerful lobbying organisations on the Island.  Perhaps it's time NFU members and the NFU top brass started asking questions about why Manx farmers are getting such a raw deal?  By applying pressure to government, and by working with the MEA, they could find that each of them is sitting on a gold mine. 

Talking of gold mines, let’s go back to big wind for a moment. 

Over the last couple of months there’s been a lot of nonsense talked about renewables by people who understand neither the technologies nor the economics. There’s even a Bill going before Tynwald urging the government to forget wind and invest in tidal power.

At first glance tidal seems to make sense: we've got a lot of sea and the tidal range is reasonably high.  However, we should be under no illusions, tidal power is sadly not an option for the Isle of Man at the moment.  As yet there are very few working tidal systems in the world; they're almost exclusively small and experimental; and they require serious public investment because the risk is still too great to attract purely private investment.  A report, due to be published shortly, will show that for tidal power to work on the Isle of Man the Treasury would need to invest a lot of money, and that even then electricity bills would soar to help pay for it.  This would be wholly regressive, hitting the poorest hardest, and the financial impact would be felt for years to come.

Wind, because it's been tried and tested for so long, is now one of the most rapidly expanding new technologies in the world. Despite its intermittency, it’s entirely predictable, which is why it’s so economically successful.

Establishing wind projects on the Isle of Man will be pretty much free: private investors will stump up the cash and the energy will be sold at competitive market rates. Our contract-share in on-shore wind and the rents earned from the two proposed off-shore wind farms would mean we’re able to pump up to £15 million a year into the Treasury by 2015. With a budget deficit of £24.4m this year, that’s not to be sniffed at.

For comment on the UK's Comprehensive Spending Review & its impact on a low carbon future - click here

Twenty years ago you could travel for miles on the Isle of Man and hardly see another car - now the main roads are dangerous and congested.  The cars themselves are wider, heavier, longer, bigger and more powerful with each year that passes.

When the problem of congestion is considered alongside the challenges of pollution, peak oil and climate change it's clear that something should be done, and done quickly, to reduce traffic on Manx roads.

The price we pay for petrol is still higher than the UK, but the cost of just about everything else associated with day-to-day motoring is considerably cheaper.  To get cars off our roads we should consider introducing Island-wide car-parking charges, guaranteeing the future of free public-transport for pensioners, extending free bus travel to under-25s, and developing a viable cycle network.

Let’s look at the free bus pass first. In the UK there's talk of getting rid of this perk to cut costs (and let’s face it where the UK go, we tend to follow). But to look at the free bus pass as a subsidy is to miss the point.

Congestion is frustrating.  It encourages people to take risks when overtaking and causes fatal accidents.  It makes the roads more dangerous for cyclists, pedestrians and for pets.  The free bus pass gets a lot traffic off the road.

Pensioners make up around a third of Manx residents.  They have more time on their hands than younger folk who’re still bringing up young families and working a five-day week.  There's also the unpalatable fact that while many pensioners start retirement in the prime of life and in full control of their faculties, the roads are also scattered with those who refuse to give up driving even though they struggle to find the correct side of the road, and run the risk of fossilising between manoeuvres. The free bus pass helps make roads safer by giving older people an alternative to the car, while ensuring they still have the freedom to get around.

Now, if we’re talking seriously about reducing accidents we should also think about the under-25s. It's statistically proven that this age group, especially young men, are more likely to drive dangerously.  It's also at that stage in life that habits are formed.  If, by offering a free bus pass we can convince some young people to get out of the car and onto a double-decker, we'll help reduce accidents and also encourage more planet-friendly habits to form.

By offering older and younger people the choice to travel free we can reduce congestion, reduce frustration, and reduce accidents. It’s also likely that we’ll save more money (in reduced hospital bills, road maintenance and wear and tear) than we actually spend in subsidising the buses in the first place.  But while we might save cash in the medium-term, we still need an injection of money up-front.  To do this we should look at increasing road tax and introducing blanket car-parking charges.  At the moment every taxpayer heavily subsidises road use and highway maintenance. It would probably be fairer to introduce a pay-as-you-go element. Across the rest of Britain people expect to spend about a pound an hour for car parking – perhaps we should too. 

Another way to reduce car travel is to get more people onto bikes.  While there are some self-propelled die-hards prepared to brave Manx roads they are relatively few and far between.  A comprehensive cycle network would be a great idea. 

Unfortunately, when you talk about cycle networks most people think of cycle lanes – and it doesn’t take a massive brain to work out that very few of the Island’s roads are wide enough, which is why to date this conversation’s been a non-starter.

But a proper cycle ‘network’ aims to avoid main roads wherever possible and to find the flattest routes. They use back ways through estates, and where there’s really no alternative to a busy road, pavements can be shared, and speed limits can be reduced. Many of our footpaths could be widened to create cycleways, and we could make better use of old railway lines and the flat land along many riverbanks. A classic example of a perfect cycleway waiting to happen is the path between Castletown and Ballasalla along the Silverburn.

A full cycle network should be as joined up as our road system, mapped, and promoted to tourists as well as to local people.

These are all fairly straightforward ideas - but by developing an integrated strategy to reduce congestion and cut CO2 emissions we could make an enormous difference to improve the quality of life on the Island in a very short space of time.

In the old days the Big Bad Wolf had it easy.  If he came across a house made of straw, there was a good chance a tasty little pig was residing.  A great big huff followed by a hearty puff would have brought the whole thing crashing down and ensured a slap-up gammon tea.

While mud, straw and wood were the building materials of choice for many in the Middle Ages, things have changed.  They proved their worth, but as populations swelled buildings needed to become larger, stronger, taller and safer.  A wattle and daub skyscraper would have been insane (which is why the architects who suggested it never worked again).  Instead, concrete, iron and glass meant we could literally reach for the stars with our Canary Wharfs and our Gherkins, and these new materials came with the added bonus of being fire retardant.  If seventeenth century London had been concrete-built there's a good chance the fire would never have caught hold (and perhaps the plague would still have been claiming lives today).

But now even the age of Brutalist concrete architecture is passing.  We've noticed that the carbon intensity of the industrial processes shaping the way we live has helped change the atmosphere, and that building like everything else we do has to adapt and evolve so we can save the planet from CO2-induced catastrophe.  We've also noticed that stone and metal are terrible at retaining warmth.

In recognition of this building standards have improved dramatically.  Engineers are reducing carbon intensity in manufacturing processes, architects are getting cleverer at re-circulating heat around properties, and legislation is demanding ever-greater energy efficiency in the home.  On the Isle of Man loft and cavity wall insulation standards are superb, and new homes are now around 30% more energy and heat efficient than they were a decade ago.  In the UK all new housing must be zero-carbon by 2016, though no date has yet been fixed here.

But legislation defines minimum standards.  Some people are becoming much more imaginative and as a result sustainable, low-carbon building is experiencing a renaissance.  While Dandara isn't likely to stop using concrete and girders any time soon, others have started looking back at the past to help them find new ways of constructing the future.

It's now people (not pigs) who build straw houses, and they employ expert builders.  Phil Gawne recently moved into an old Manx cottage at Lingague, and like most people decided it needed extending.  But instead of bricks and mortar his new build has been constructed from timber and straw. The result is nothing like the tussocky huts you see in bad Robin Hood movies.  In fact if a wolf did happen to stalk past, then the chances are he wouldn't notice it was a straw house at all, and even if he did he'd need Wile E. Coyote's sticks of dynamite to blow it down.

Phil's architect, James Hampton, has designed and built a beautiful timber frame into which ordinary straw bales have been placed to create the walls and roof.  The straw will be sealed with locally sourced clay plaster and on the outside it'll also be clad with larch shiplap.  Inside there will be glass panels, known as 'truth windows', through which you can actually see the straw.  Modern straw construction methods, now tried and tested over several decades, mean that the house will be as robust and fire proof as any other.

I visited the site shortly after the straw bales had been put in place.  There was still no floor, and the building was very much open to the elements.  Normally on a visit to a building site I'm struck by how cold and damp it feels.  By contrast the straw house was already warm, and the wood and bales gave off a rich resin smell.  James also reckons the final price will be cheaper than if he’d used traditional materials.  Ancient and current building methods have combined to create a zero-carbon alternative for modern living.  (And it's nice to see a politician leading by example.)

Sustainable housing comes in all shapes and sizes.  It dramatically reduces CO2 emissions, creates new opportunities for farmers, and increases demand for sustainably managed woodland.  Timber can be used to create frames for grand designs or family homes, and super-quality insulation can be provided by anything from straw bales to soil, from shredded newspaper to sheep's wool.

When I first heard about the idea of a modern straw house it seemed like a green-tinted extravagance.  Instead, my wife and I came away from our visit to the Gawne’s feeling determined to get some land and build our own.

It's easy to characterise environmentalists as kiljoys. Indeed in some circles it seems compulsory. But believe it or not people like me do enjoy music, dancing, even parties... and personally I'm also a big fan of fossil fuels. I get a kick out of driving my car, still get a rush as the 'plane takes off and lands, and won't leave the house without a mobile phone in my pocket.

The difference is that while petrol-heads seem to delight in destroying the planet, environmentalists recognise that having discovered the truth about the impact of an activity we try to do it less, or stop doing it at all. We recognise that, yes, we do all have the ‘right’ to enjoy ourselves, but we also have ‘responsibilities’ to our friends and families, to the rest of the world, and to future generations.

Humans have balanced rights and responsibilities since the dawn of time. When a caveman invented fire there was probably another one complaining asking him to turn the light off because he was trying to sleep. As mankind evolved we developed laws to make it clear where the boundaries lay. For example, there are few today who'd argue they should have the right to rape and murder when they're in the mood, although there was probably a degree of opposition in the 13th Century editorials of Nuts and Loaded magazines when this was first enshrined in law.

I make this observation now, because of the Villa Marina Fun Day.

Balloon races are bright, colourful and lots of fun. In the old days when no-one thought about the marine environment everyone could enjoy them, no questions asked. But we've now realised that if we release a thousand balloons into the air then a serious number of them are going to come down somewhere. According to the Marine Conservation Society a lot of these come down in the sea.

Balloons are mistaken for tasty jellyfish by passing turtles and get swallowed up by sea birds. The balloons fill their stomachs; they stop eating, and then die. When the balloons deflate they start to break down and get ingested by fish, which then get caught and eaten by humans who share the poison. If there’s time, the balloon degrades further and adds to the ever larger slick of plastic pollution that's now constantly present in our seas, and the tough rubber ring where balloons are blown up gets trapped around the feet and beaks of birds like oystercatchers and curlews.

While balloon companies have made their product more biodegradable in recent years, the rubber still takes months to dissolve, by which time it's already caused most of the damage environmentalists worry about. The trailing ribbons also ensnare a wide menagerie of marine life. Anyone who's taken part in beach cleaning will have been appalled by the number of burst balloons and bits of shiny string that get washed up on our shores.

For these reasons many of us wrote to the organiser of the Villa Marina Fun Day urging against the advertised mass balloon release. I wrote, as did fellow environmentalists, local charities, UK-national marine charities and marine officers from within the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture. Speaking for myself, the initial response was simply to ignore my letter.  When I followed it up I received an angry defensive attack because I’d dared to ask the question at all – a disappointing attitude from someone representing government. But eventually the person stopped shouting long enough to see the sense in what was asked, and has now, thankfully, decided not to go ahead with the balloon release after all.

We didn't ask for the balloon release to be stopped because we hate fun. Balloon releases look fantastic. But at this stage in human evolution we should know better. Increasingly we're prepared to look beyond our immediate actions and consider the long-term consequences for environment and wildlife. In this instance there could be no justification for the brief pleasure gained from watching some coloured bits of rubber float away, because the lasting damage caused would have been serious.

But before those who don't agree start calling me a Kiljoy, let me point out that there are ways of having fun that don't imperil the lives of others. The Castletown Confetti Carnival is a great example. It's a lot of colourful fun, enjoyed by loads of people, and no-one can really complain about the few bits of bright tissue paper left blowing in the wind – it’s quickly biodegradable, and even if it does get eaten by babies or birds, it's not going to do them any damage.

There are ways to have fun that don’t endanger the planet. I’m pleased that the organiser of this month’s Villa Marina Fun Day was finally prepared to listen. Many people will enjoy it all the more.

You can find more information about ocean pollution and beach cleaning on the IoM Friends of the Earth website – foe.org.im

In the Gulf of Mexico plumes of oil still rise through the ocean like the tail feathers of a Hellish bird. 30,000 barrels of oil are gushing into the water every day. The sea life and bird life caught and suffocated in the slicks are not just casualties of our modern world, but the helpless victims of our insatiable thirst for cheap fuel at any cost.

The Deepwater Horizon was not a freak incident; it was an accident waiting to happen.  The miracle is that we've been so lucky for so long.  While on this occasion B.P. is the central villain it would be a mistake to point the finger at them alone. The whole oil industry is rife with unfit-for-purpose infrastructure that should have been decommissioned long ago, but profit has always been allowed to trump environmental caution. Despite the environmental dangers inherent in oil exploitation, companies have operated with limited scrutiny, polluting and destroying habitats and livelihoods around the world.

The Ogoni people of the Niger delta have probably suffered most. They’ve borne the brunt of oil spills for generations, but most of us haven’t heard their story because newspaper editors have chosen not to tell us. It seems Nigerian faces are less worthy of front-page headlines than the good ol’ boys of the Louisiana Plaquemines. Although oil spill data is kept secret by the Nigerian government, Amnesty believes that at least 9m barrels of oil were spilled in the delta in 2009 alone. The area’s been an environmental disaster for fifty years, but now creaking pipelines, lack of security, illegal trading in stolen oil, and poverty have conspired to poison swamps, forests, agricultural land and drinking water on a massive scale. The journalist, John Vidal, who recently visited the delta lands wrote of the 'stench of garage forecourts and rotting vegetation hanging thickly in the air'; of 'swimming through pools of light Nigerian crude... notebooks held above our heads.'

To put it simply: oil is a nasty business.  Our dependence makes culprits of us all. Cormorants are dying on US beaches because we drive cars and fly in aeroplanes. Turtles are suffocating because we want cheap food and gadgets. The Ogoni people are suffering so that our strawberries can be wrapped in plastic.

Our dependence on oil means deferring our moral standards. Most of us believe in human rights, in the rule of law, and conservation. Yet our desire for oil means we expect others to do business with tyrants and despots on our behalf. We trade with nations who abuse their citizens, who wage war on their neighbours, and ethnically cleanse religious and cultural minorities with mediaeval savagery. Our energy security is in the hands of gangsters.

There is an alternative, and gradually governments are waking up to the new energy revolution. The Deepwater Horizon disaster may yet prove to be the ‘9/11 moment’ for global energy policy that President Obama has spoken of.

Ethical power is now perfectly within our grasp. In fifty years people will look back to this period in our intellectual evolution and wonder what took us so long to embrace the wind, tide, and sun. But for now the debate continues. Letters are printed in the Examiner from those opposing clean technology, written in credible language, by seemingly authoritative voices. But if the writers ever knew what they were talking about, their knowledge is out of date. It’s a similar situation in Tynwald. May’s debate about producing 15% of our electricity from renewables by 2015 showed the divide between those with a practical eye on the future, and those with barely the brain of a bucket of frogs. The angels won, but the lies and obfuscations of peak oil and climate change sceptics need constantly to be rebuffed.

It’s a fact that oil and gas are running out. It's a fact that depleting reserves are forcing oil companies to turn to ever more energy intensive, unstable, expensive and extreme methods of meeting demand, such as skimping on maintenance and leeching oil from the tar sands of the Caspian and Utah. It’s a fact that wind power is clean and fully commercially viable, and that many other renewable energy methods are also available on an industrial scale. Within a decade tidal resources will be harnessed too.

Our energy strategy must centre on cold, hard facts and financial sustainability. It’s socially, environmentally and economically negligent to maintain our reliance on oil and gas when the entire Island could be energy self-sufficient within a generation. Thankfully, there are those in Tynwald who agree.

In years to come our drug-like dependence on oil will have been replaced by a partnership with nature. At that point even the most sceptical will see that clean secure energy was never a bandwagon. It was common sense.

* ffinlo will be on the ‘Flourish or Flounder’ debate panel at CRHS on 12th July. Doors open 6.45pm. All welcome. Full details at www.foe.org.im

The MEA plans to introduce a new green electricity tariff. According to their staff the proposal will be put to the Energy and Climate Change Committee later this summer.

You might expect greenies be pleased. But are we balderdash! Elsewhere in Britain a green tariff has been used to generate and sustain funds for additional renewable energy capacity. This green tariff is essentially green wash.

People who opt-in will pay more for their electricity – but not a single additional green atom of energy will be generated, and the funds raised will be used to plug a hole in the government's straining budget.

Friends of the Earth campaigned hard for a green tariff last year. This is perhaps to be expected, but pressure has also been coming from large Britain-wide companies. Marks and Spencer, for example, needs renewable energy to deliver on its (bizarrely named) ‘Plan A’ commitment to sustainable retailing. On the Isle of Man it can’t. The Coop is in a similar position. Castletown customers may have noticed a misleading poster that boasts that wind energy is used to power all Coop stores. This is true everywhere else of course, but not on the Isle of Man. The Coop management has recently been persuaded to see the light and add a disclaimer to the poster, which acknowledges the Manx anomaly.

According to MEA sources these companies and others have been pressing for a renewable tariff for some time. Now they're going to get one, which will tick their corporate boxes, but make essentially no difference to the Isle of Man's capacity to generate clean energy at all.

So what is this tariff, and how will it work? Readers may already know that hydro electricity generates around 1% of the Isle of Man's energy. Well, that's it. The energy will be ring-fenced and targeted at the corporates (and any other poor eco-suckers who want to pay more for their electricity), and because that won't be enough, energy from the Energy-From-Waste plant will also be used. EFW electricity is of course non-renewable, and the heat by-product from the energy generating process is still completely wasted.

Green tariff customers should expect to pay around a penny extra per kilowatt-hour to buy this ‘green’ electricity that was being produced anyway. In other words corporates and greenies will be taxed for the pleasure of using the same energy they were using before, just with a different name. Anyone spot a scam?

But what then happens to this additional cash?

You may remember that until last year DLGE (as it was) provided home insulation and energy efficiency grants. These grants were cut because they weren't targeted at the poorest and because a House Conditions Survey identified that 4% of Manx homes were officially ‘unfit to live in’. The money was redirected to help get those homes up to standard. With a limited budget I’d argue that DLGE made the right decision – but it’s a choice they shouldn’t have had to make.

The heat wasted from the average household is vast. With climate change ever higher on the agenda there’s a real need to address this problem. Taxation is used to raise money and to change behaviour. This new levy will raise only a small amount of cash, and it will change the behaviour of absolutely no one because it’s targeted at those who’re already doing what they can to reduce their energy consumption. It's just another wasted opportunity.

Everyone on the Island will benefit from building renewable capacity before the oil prices go through the roof – and everyone on the Island will benefit if we (and others around the world) manage to reduce CO2 emissions to safe levels. The impact of taxation to produce green energy should therefore be fairly spread, and those who are poorest should pay least. The case for clean electricity should be made to the general public so they understand that energy efficiency and renewable electricity development are not just desirable, but imperative to our long term survival.

Having said all that – the concept of a green tariff should be welcomed. Until now the MEA management has failed to understand the imperatives of climate change and peak oil, and has been very anti-renewables. Although this particular tariff is green wash – it’s a start, and as we've seen elsewhere, green wash can lead to greater understanding, and ultimately to genuine affirmative action on green issues.

There’s also still time to improve the plans before the Energy and Climate Change Committee agree them. So if you have concerns please write to the MEA Chairman now. I'm sure he'll be happy to hear from you.

Potholes, crumbling tarmac, vast ditches dug like gashes by tyres at the sides of roads, poor drainage and road works everywhere... driving on the Isle of Man has become a nightmare. As a greeny you might think I'd be pleased – but we all have to get places. The problem isn't that people sometimes use a car – it’s that we drive everywhere for everything, and that more and more of us do so in dirty great tanks that break up the roads and endanger other people's lives.

There are now 80,000 people living here – and there are 67,300 vehicles. At the start of the 1980s you could drive for miles and hardly see another car. And if the numbers weren't bad enough, even worse is that a quarter of residential cars are these awful urban 4x4s, which most people haven't got a clue how to drive! Every day I see huddled figures peering over steering wheels driving monstrosities they don't know the width of, holding up traffic, and insisting on about three spaces to park in.

It astonishes me that urban 4x4s aren't taxed out of existence. They cause more accidents, they kill more quickly, and they pollute like dragons. If you ever go near a school run you can hardly see the tarmac because the fashion wagons have congregated like overgrown rooks, with each parent desperately trying to outdo the next on the pretext of protecting their little sparrow-like child from the other metal birds... And they chunter: 'I had to get mine - there's so many others - I needed to be higher - I must drive my child 200 yards...' Arrgghhh! Can't you see the terrible vicious cycle that you've been locked into? …And so they populate like shiny black moulded aliens with more destructive force than a Darlek's most potent dreams.

And climate change? Ha! Well parents, with your super-charged-turbo-tankers, we can kiss the world goodbye if that's the way you're going to carry on. 'But my 4x4s so efficient... it does 30 miles to the gallon...' Yes! I'm sure it does this year. But by the time it's ten it'll only be doing three, you selfish, myopic fool.

Note to self. Must see the doctor. Relax… calm... breathe... But before I get off the subject of nightmare vehicles… I was waiting for the boat in Liverpool the other day… surrounded by rally cars and trials bikes… I just wanted to get out and slash their tyres.

Summer here is now a festering rash of motor sport from end to end. I don't mean the TT – that’s historic and we’ve had to learn to love it – but the constant closure of rural roads for ever more rally racing drives me insane.

Worse again is that you can't even avoid the waspish sounds of engines by going for a nice walk on the mountain. Last December the ex-Transport Minister David Anderson told us we had to tolerate damage to green ways because a thousand off-roaders bring £340,000 a year to the Island's economy. Was he smoking joss sticks? I’ve seen some cooked up figures, but that’s ridiculous.

This winter has seen some of the worst degradation of the mountains for a generation. On the Carnanes overlooking Surby the number of wheel ruts in the green way has increased from about five to nearly fifteen – some of them a foot deep. The Millennium Way above St Luke’s is even worse. The green way itself ends, but most off-roaders ignore this fact entirely. The footpath has worn down so much that for over a mile you have to balance precariously above a succession of two foot deep wheel dug trenches.

Repairing the devastation will take years and many thousands of pounds. Every summer I hear more walkers saying they’ll never come here again because we’ve become such a haven for motor sport. They feel like second-class citizens.

The law applying to off-road vehicles is much weaker here than elsewhere in Britain, which is why they come to the Isle of Man and destroy our landscape instead. But surely it’s time we did something about it. As a Manxman with a love of the Island’s landscape built up over a thousand years of family heritage I feel deeply invaded by the combustion engine. Whatever happened to our motto: Quocunque Jeceris Stabit? (Whichever way you throw me I stand?) We’ve seen off invasion after invasion, only to let modern off-road bikers destroy our mountains, rally cars take over our lanes, and 4x4s carve up our roads. Our ancestors would be spinning in their graves.

To watch the film of this column - Click here

I'm a vegetarian, and my wife's a meat eater.  It's a bone of contention between us. A bone she gnaws with BBQ sauce, and which I just want to bury in a dignified manner.

Our small discussions over the kitchen table are a domestic reflection of a big conversation happening around the world. Excessive meat and dairy consumption is contributing nearly a fifth of the world's climate change emissions. In addition, farming is frequently cruel and intensive, and the spectre of 9bn people to feed by 2050 looms threateningly before us. Modern lifestyles, including modern diets, are unsustainable - so, perhaps we should stop eating meat?

Already I can hear the sound of pitchforks sharpening around the Island. But wait… according to a new report by Compassion in World Farming and Friends of the Earth, the answer’s 'No' - We can feed the world and its 9bn citizens, while reducing carbon emissions, and improving standards of farm animal welfare.

The research modelled future food production against a range of diets and farming systems and found that people in rich countries people could still eat meat up to three times a week without precipitating Armageddon.

Cutting down would probably be a good idea anyway. The World Health Organisation says most people in Britain eat three and a half times more meat than they should, which can lead to cancer, diabetes and obesity. By contrast people in poor countries eat too little. There are 1bn obese people on the planet, and a billion who are undernourished. Reducing our meat and dairy consumption will ensure available land and resources go further to feed more people.

Sadly, the meat barons are already trying to convince world governments that the only way to feed 9bn people is to slash production costs further and to intensify factory-farming methods more. The CIWF/FoE report turns this nonsense on its head. It finds unequivocally that only sustainable farming methods can provide enough food for everyone.

Producing meat and dairy creates 18% of the world's greenhouse gasses – more than all forms of transport combined. Meat's also inefficient. Currently the majority of the 60bn animals raised and slaughtered each year are farmed in intensive systems, even though these systems use around 10kg of feed and 15,500 litres of water to produce each kilogram of meat. Using so much grain to feed animals is unsustainable, it's unfair on poorer nations, and of course, the welfare issues associated with factory farming are diabolical.

The research found that the most planet-friendly, sustainable way of farming meat and dairy is in small-scale, mixed and extensive systems. This essentially describes Manx farming methods. Organic farming is best because it doesn’t use wasteful petrochemical fertilisers and pesticides, which are already becoming more expensive due to rising oil scarcity, and which also strip the soil of most of its goodness.

We also need to reconsider the global model of food distribution. Instead of wasting energy shipping food around the world we should be shopping seasonally and locally. Greater localisation would help farmers earn fairer prices and would reduce the number of animals suffering cruel long distance travel before slaughter. Farmers would also be better able to concentrate on quality and taste because their competitors would be working under the same laws. Cheap Brazilian beef might be popular, but shipping it to Britain’s ridiculous when we’ve got perfectly good cows of our own. Cheap commodity beef puts huge pressure on the land, and forests, particularly rainforests, are being cleared at a phenomenal rate. We’re losing vital carbon sinks and then as the felled trees are used or burned they release their own stored carbon into the atmosphere – a climate change double whammy.

We also need to learn to use what's in the fridge. A 2008 report found that families in Britain throw 8.3m tonnes of food away each year. Supermarkets and restaurants dump even more. Much of this food rots in landfill, contributing further to global warming.

Governments need to make decisions. They need to actively support and promote local agriculture and teach young people how to cook healthy food in schools. If kids can’t manage a basic omelette it’s no wonder they chomp cheeseburgers, chicken nuggets and other junk.

On the Isle of Man our farmers do a good job of farming extensively and humanely, but there’s always room to improve. We do have factory systems, and we should get rid of them. We should try harder to use fewer petrochemical fertilisers and pesticides, and encourage more farmers to go organic. These changes would help improve animal welfare and lessen the impact of our agriculture on climate change.

But as soon as anyone suggests people should eat less meat farmers’ blood pressure skyrockets as though farming was only ever about producing a big steak or a string of sausages. Perhaps there should have been a health warning on this article. But Manx people eating less meat and dairy will have little or no impact on overall farm incomes. Instead quality, diversity, localisation and niche branding must play ever more important roles. In other words: selling a bit less of a greater range of food, for a little more.

Three years ago Compassion in World Farming were impressed with the Island's agriculture. They offered to work with us to help develop a niche welfare brand that would have added significant value to sustainably produced Manx food. Some farmers and policymakers showed genuine interest and a pioneering spirit – but most were scared of change. In my view they missed a massive opportunity. Perhaps it's time for them to think again.

One thing at least is certain. Over the next two generations global food policy-making will become an intense battle ground as governments and markets struggle to produce enough food for everyone. 

And for now perhaps, so long as it’s sustainably produced, I should leave my wife alone to gnaw on her bone in peace.

* To watch a film of this article, or to see the CIWF/FoE report & its summary - visit the Green Pages
* I'm pleased to note that Ramsey Commissioners have now decided to cut CO2 emissions and support the 10:10 campaign

---

Wind energy coming to Isle of Man

Over the years I’ve criticised the Isle of Man for being slow to embrace renewable energy. When questioned the MEA has behaved defensively, which has sadly meant that even when they’re doing the right thing they’ve failed to communicate it. But despite attempts to bury good news - there's good news to tell.

Firstly, we’re going to be getting renewable energy, which in the short term almost certainly means wind farms. Secondly, we’ll earn millions of pounds a year from them. This news has seeped out – heaven forbid it should be released – following recent efforts to move power generation forwards by the Energy and Climate Change Committee.

To find out more I visited the Island’s Senior Energy Policy Manager Ken Milne and Business Development Manager Brian Hammond at the DTI. They outlined in detail the renewable energy opportunities the Isle of Man is now actively considering.

To many environmentalists a wind farm is like a ballet. The grace of the turbines interacting with the forces of nature is exquisite. But the recent Aquatera and Mott MacDonald report have at last inspired agreement that on and off-shore wind provide beautiful economic opportunities as well.

For a moment let me transport you ten years into the future. Around half the Isle of Man’s electricity is now wind generated. On-shore there’s a 20MW wind farm (around 12 turbines) supplying 12% of our energy needs. Off-shore there are two 1GW (1000MW) wind farms: one to the northeast; one to the south, which are injecting around £6m a year into the Manx economy. On top of that hundreds of jobs have been created in wind farm construction and maintenance, corporate services and on-shore supplies provision. We’re also pushing ahead with tidal power at the Point of Ayre and Langness, and farmers are producing energy crops to pelletise and use as biomass.

That’s the future. But there are hurdles to overcome and for now let’s concentrate on wind. Some correspondents to this paper have suggested wind power’s uneconomic. It isn’t – but there are conditions that need to be met to ensure wind farms make financial sense. One of the most important factors is access to the Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs) scheme.

ROCs are a UK solution that’s provided the necessary financial support for renewables investment in Britain. They’re clever because instead of funding support from direct taxation ROCs mean that money comes from the energy companies themselves. In 2002 Westminster legislated to force the energy industry to produce a proportion of their energy from renewable sources. Initially the proportion was 3%, but by 2015 it’ll be 15%. If energy generators are unable to meet their obligations they pay what’s effectively a fine, which goes into a renewable investment fund used to provide cash for other renewables projects.

Until now ROCs have only applied to energy companies operating in the UK. But by 2011 the ROCs market will probably have opened up to anyone who can supply energy to the UK National Grid via one of the many interconnectors between Britain and mainland Europe. Even if ROCs aren’t opened up to European competition we’re still likely to see a bilateral ROCs relationship between the UK and ourselves.

When this happens Manx waters suddenly become very attractive. We know the UK’s crown estate leases its seabed to energy companies for 2% of the energy generated. If we charged the same we’d receive (at today’s prices) around £3m of electricity each year from each 1GW wind farm. This could be used to power our homes and businesses, or we could sell it and generate revenue to invest in our public services.

Some people complain that wind farms are inefficient because wind is an intermittent energy source. It is. If it blows too hard the turbines shut down; if it’s too light they don’t work at all. But wind farm economic models are based on the turbines generating power for just 30% of the time. Those who support tidal energy point out that the tide is constant and more efficient, but tidal technology isn’t yet cheap or reliable enough. Wind is 100% proven and affordable.

Having said that intermittency does cause a problem in terms of receiving wind energy onto the grid. In one scenario each Manx offshore wind farm would send power to the UK via an interconnector. Once on the UK grid our 2% would be sent back without causing the instability that could occur if it was sent straight to us. In another equally plausible scenario (which illustrates another exciting opportunity), the Island becomes the central part of an Irish Sea super-grid, conditioning the electricity being generated by a number of wind farms around us, and then supplying the clean power to the UK and charging a fee for the service.

Although we expect a ROCs deal within two years, it’s still going to take at least six to get off-shore wind farms up and running – and here’s why. Firstly, we need to decide where to stick the wind farms, which involves writing a comprehensive Marine Spatial Plan, doing a Regional Environmental Assessment and agreeing marine planning legislation. Work on each of these has started and will continue for about two years alongside the ROCs negotiations. Once we’ve decided where the wind farms should go, we’ll then have to go out to tender. Another year. Then once an energy company’s won the contract they’ll need to do their own environmental and wind speed assessments, which could take another two years. Finally, they have to build the thing. That’s the fast bit and should only take a year. But finally, having spent nothing except a bit of civil service time, we’ll start to reap the benefit of several million quid a year.

So now let’s move back on land, where MEA technicians and the DTI have been collaborating to work out the logistics of on-shore wind. Next month in Tynwald (according to other sources) John Shimmin is likely to tell members that Government can’t reduce CO2 emissions by a further 10% this year (as Friends of the Earth requested as part of the 10:10 campaign). On the other hand, he is expected to ask Tynwald to support a commitment of 15% reductions by 2015. Getting on-shore capacity up and running quickly will make this target much easier to reach.

ROCs are still an important part of the equation – but there are some much more prosaic issues to overcome too. On-shore turbine blades are likely to be fifty metres long. Getting something that size out of Douglas and around the Island requires a magic wand, so there’s a limit to the number of places they can go. Not surprisingly the current preferred option is to place them near the coast where unloading and construction is simpler.

Putting them near sea level would also make them more efficient. Manx wind is good – but to be honest it’s a bit too good. Turbines shut down if the wind gusts at more than 27 metres per second and don’t start again until the wind drops to 3mps. Wind speeds at sea level are more consistent than they are in the mountains.

Electricity is generated based on expected demand and then supplied and delivered to and from the grid within a tight half-hour window, therefore intermittency from onshore wind needs careful management too. But where an offshore 1GW installation would swamp the Manx grid, the expected output from on-shore wind would be entirely manageable. Having said that we have to accept that a wind farm can shut down at a moment’s notice, so it’ll be necessary for the MEA to have their gas turbines ready to fill the gap. That’s a small cost, but insignificant in the big economic scheme of things.

Planning permission also needs to be considered. Any proposed wind farm would have to jump through the planning hoops associated with any other major infrastructure project, and that too could take several years.

But suddenly, it seems there’s hope. The Isle of Man’s power generating methods are beginning to stir out of the Dark Ages and tentatively reach toward the opportunities renewable energy can provide. It’ll be six years before we actually see on and off-shore wind turbines generating electricity for the Isle of Man – but we’re only talking about it at all because of the personal commitment of ministers Gawne, Shimmin and Cretney – of civil servants Brian Hammond, Martin Hall and Peter Longworth, whose heads are black and blue from years banging them against brick walls – and because of the hundreds of campaigners who’ve constantly tried to push renewable energy up the Government’s agenda.

My letter on the appointment of the new Manx Electricity Authority chief executive was truncated. This is the full version.

Dear Editor, I wish Mr King well as the new chief executive of the MEA. He's likely to hold the role for a long time, and the challenges are many. Primary among these is the fact that the MEA currently provides poor value for money. Prices are very high when compared to neighbouring territories and choice is non-existent.

The MEA holds a monopoly position. Without competition companies tend to become flabby, tend stop innovating, and tend to ignore their customers. All three are true in this case.

It's long been accepted by strategic energy planners that peak oil is coming; it may already be here. It's universally accepted by governments that climate change means we must reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Electricity generated on the Isle of Man is almost exclusively from diesel and gas, neither of which are secure. The MEA board is currently neglecting residents' interests by failing to develop alternatives that will ensure people can afford to heat their homes when the oil and gas become scarce and expensive.

Despite the fact that the MEA is a statutory board of Tynwald it has unfortunately operated as though the will of Government is irrelevant in regard to developing renewables. The chairman of the MEA is appointed to the board as an agent of Tynwald. He is failing to deliver on Tynwald's renewable energy policy (in force since 2006), and Tynwald is failing to hold him to account.

Renewable energy comes in many forms. The best opportunities for the Isle of Man include off-shore wind, bio-mass, solar, wave and hydro. Some of these would be commercially generated, some would come on-line from micro-generators. We can no longer rely on fossil fuels as our one big idea. Future energy security requires a patchwork of alternative generating methods.

Recently the MEA chairman stated publicly that we should invest only in tried and tested technology. That's reasonable - but wind and bio-mass (energy from burning willow) are both now highly commercially successful, and the cost of installing wind farms is entirely comparable to installing other more 'conventional' power generators.

Last year a thousand Manx residents signed postcards to the MEA saying that they wanted to buy energy from a green tariff. Sadly, instead of responding to these consumer urges the MEA is still actively slowing progress towards renewable energy production.

Power generation isn't just about large-scale solutions. One of the greatest barriers to micro-generation (home, farm and other small energy generation) is the current feed-in tariff: the rate at which micro-generators can sell their excess energy into the main Grid. Soon in the UK home generators will be paid around 30p per kWh for excess energy. Here it's 3.64p per kWh.

Unless the new chief executive is able to prove, very quickly, that the MEA is prepared to respond both to the directions of Tynwald, and in the interest of consumers, its monopoly position should be reviewed.

Elsewhere, while the Grid remains in public ownership, electricity is now bought and sold in a competitive market place. I would favour a similar situation here. The MEA is currently expressing no interest in delivering a green tariff, so other companies should be allowed to do so via the subsea interconnector. Consumers would pay a standing charge to the MEA for use of the infrastructure, but would buy units of electricity from whoever offered the most attractive package. A free market in energy would also to help reduce electricity prices - just as competition brought down the price of mobile phone calls.

The MEA has languished in its monopoly for many years. I hope Mr King is prepared to face up to the challenge of bringing our electricity generation and supply into the modern consumer age.

Best wishes, ffinlo

Last month a simple request to cut CO2 sent Ramsey Commissioners into spasms of anger. Commissioner Radcliffe put on a Hammer Horror performance, metaphorically chaining himself to a burning stake and screeching in defence of the innocent masses as though they’d been accused of witchcraft; ranting about 'zealots' masterminding a great 'conspiracy'. IoM Friends of the Earth made an impressive debut as the oppressive Catholic Church.

It was a remarkable reaction. FoE had politely requested that Commissioners consider ways to reduce their CO2 emissions by 10% in 2010. Far from being unreasonable, this request would not only result in a reduced impact on climate change, it would also help local ratepayers’ money go further. Letters had been sent to all Boards of Commissioners. Ramsey’s reply was unpleasant; Peel’s unhelpful – only Port Erin and Lezayre seemed to take the issue seriously.

Thankfully this is the 21st Century, not the 15th, and I've no desire to roll climate change deniers down Slieu Whallian in a spiky barrel just because they still worship the god of oil. I would however question their dogmatic beliefs.

Much has changed since the 1400s. We've discovered the earth is round, that pills are better than leeches, and that humans evolved from apes. We've discovered electricity, democracy, television, aeroplanes, the internet – all of which would have seemed heretical and magical in the past, but which are now clearly explained by science.

As a species we’ve achieved incredible, mind-blowing things by working together and sharing information. But collective knowledge isn't the same as personal knowledge. I haven't a clue how or why my mobile phone works, but I know it does and I use it every day. Everywhere you look, science and progress have made our lives easier, safer, cleaner and healthier.

There’s now a practical consensus between scientists and global decision-makers that human impacts (primarily the burning of fossil fuels) are causing the planet to warm unnaturally. Society has the chance to reverse this. Unfortunately, there’re still people in influential positions who refuse to trust scientists, and who’re seeking to delay solutions that’ll save lives.

Commissioners are elected to make the right choices for their communities. They can’t do this if they’re blinded by indignation and unable to spot opportunities that’ll benefit taxpayers. Sadly, it doesn't matter how much Ramsey Commissioners want to believe that climate change is still a questionable theory – there simply isn't a credible study on the planet to support their point of view.

But, just for fun, let’s consider for a moment that science might be wrong… What's so terrible about developing clean, secure, renewable energy, reducing pollution, creating new jobs, promoting new businesses, and rewarding people who live less wasteful lives? It’s top economists, not environmentalists, who’ve calculated that an annual investment of 1% of GDP now will save us spending up to 20% in the future. The best available information tells us there's a problem – dogma should not be allowed to get in the way of progress.

Instead, Commissioners should be considering the opportunities that exist for Local Government. For example, simply by auditing local services they should be able to come up with energy and cost savings in the region of 10%. (With the crash in VAT revenues they ought to be doing this anyway.)

Many Local Authorities seem to work on a year-by-year basis. By taking a more strategic approach they should be able to save money and provide better value. By investing in renewables they could reduce bills by cutting the amount of electricity they actually buy. For example solar and wind powered street lamps are now common in many countries, but not here. In the future, Local Authority wind farms could power Commissioner offices, even whole estates: reducing costs for all concerned. Commissioners could do more to promote local businesses to local people, and provide better recycling facilities and create allotments. They could also work together to provide extra public transport, connecting rural areas with shared taxis or minibuses.

Ramsey in particular could benefit from wind because any future wind farm is likely to be off the northeast coast, meaning Ramsey will be the nearest port. Local businesses around the harbour and in the town could thrive if they provide quality services to those building and maintaining the turbines, just as they benefited in the days of Radio Caroline.

Climate change is a fact of life. The sooner we stop trying to prove that leeches are better than paracetamol, and embrace progress in the form of energy savings and new technologies, the greater our chance of limiting the impacts of global warming on future generations.

It’s even possible that if we strip away the paranoia and denial, and instead look forwards with a bit of enthusiasm, we might find the future is cleaner, brighter, better, and more secure than it is today.

My wife wants a baby. I'd quite like an i-phone. To settle the dispute I did some eco-research so I could get some logic into the conversation.

The environmental impact of an i-phone is fairly small. It’ll produce 0.055 tonnes of CO2 over its life cycle, the handset is PVC free, and it uses recyclable materials in the product and the packaging. It costs around £450.

On the other hand a child will cost (according to babycenter.com) about £250,000 before it leaves home. Life expectancy on the Isle of Man is 79 years, which at 10 tonnes of CO2 per person per year (the average) means it’ll produce a potential 790 tonnes of CO2 across its lifetime. There are positives: a human is biodegradable, it can feed and clothe itself ethically, it might grow up become a great philosopher – but because it has free-will it could grow up to be a gas-guzzling monster who eats inefficient foods, hates blacks and gays, and joins the Tory party.

I explained all this to my wife, who's pretty ethical herself. She listened to the arguments, glared at me, told me I couldn't have an i-phone, and that she still wanted a baby. Obviously my arguments needed to be more robust.

In 1950 the world's population was 2.5 billion. Now it’s around 6.5 billion. By 2050, the UN says it’ll be at least 9 billion. That extra 2.5 billion people is the equivalent again of everyone currently living in Europe, Africa, and North and South America combined.

Since 1900 world food production has tripled, but to feed 9 billion people it’ll have to double again by 2050. Previous increases were based on mechanisation and petrochemical fertilisers, but that won’t work this time. We know oil supply will peak in the near future, that prices will rise, and that by 2050 oil will be a very expensive resource.

And what about water? Already a billion people don't have regular access to clean water. Add another 3 billion into the equation and it’s easy to see why many predict that wars will be waged over water before the end of the century.

In that context, surely having a baby is the most anti-social thing anyone can ever do? But population control is difficult. Invading civil liberties to that extent invites instant condemnation. In 1979 China made illegal to have more than one child, and parents were heavily fined if they did. In 1977 India forced vasectomies on every man they arrested (for crimes as minor as ticket dodging on a train). 8 million men were sterilised, and the public outcry brought down the government.

But should every government be considering these kinds of measures in order to avoid a population catastrophe? Opinion is divided, but many, perhaps surprisingly, think not. Instead they point to world consumption, which is incredibly unfair. Currently the average Briton consumes six times more resources than the average Indian. The average US citizen consumes almost twice as much as people in Britain. Human ecologists have suggested that under different conditions the earth could comfortably sustain 9 billion human beings.

But to cope with the sudden increase in world population everyone needs to share resources more equally, as well as quickly developing new food and energy technologies.

As a species we've been great at rising to challenges. We’ve built bridges, space rockets and nuclear bombs. But when it comes to working together... Hmm. Even in the face of rapid climate change world leaders in Copenhagen failed to agree anything meaningful, largely because it meant changing the global economic model.

There is a ray of hope. In the Indian state of Kerala the average rate of births per woman has fallen dramatically. Compulsory education of girls is at the root of the decline. A literate generation of women has grown up with greater expectations; better able to control their lives and plan their families. Education coupled with contraception (which should be seen as a human right) has reduced the birth rate to just 1.5 children per woman, because women are getting married and starting families much later.

To address the surge in world population it seems that instead of introducing one-child policies and sterilisation we should try distribute resources more fairly between rich and poor nations. We should invest in education, lift people out of poverty, and ensure access to family planning. But until that happens there’s an ethical responsibility for us all to have fewer kids. Even now, having three children should be considered as antisocial as blowing fag smoke in a baby’s face.

Armed with these arguments I went back and talked to my wife. She still wants kids, but we’ll keep it down to 1.5 – and perhaps one day, I'll get an i-phone.

A great climate change fraud has occurred – and I want to set the record straight. But first I want to congratulate Tynwald Members on their unanimous support of John Shimmin's climate change motion last November. It's great to be able to start the New Year with a something positive – and I heartily applaud MHKs and MLCs, especially those who've previously doubted climate change, for starting to get to grips with the issue.

Having said that - the motion was timid, so at the close of last year Isle of Man Friends of the Earth campaigned for stronger cuts through a campaign to cut CO2 emissions by 10% in 2010. The campaign was successful in generating a flurry of activity in the media and behind the scenes in Tynwald in the run up to the UN Climate Conference – and it ensured the political focus on reducing carbon emissions continued.

DLGE Minister John Shimmin attended the Climate Conference. I hope he’s returned from Copenhagen determined to do all he can to ensure the Isle of Man develops a creative and coordinated partnership between Government and the public to both dramatically reduce carbon use and to invest in the opportunities of climate change. (See Oct/Nov Green Columns or visit ffinlo.org)

So – now – back to the fraud. Just before the Conference started e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at Anglia University were leaked. The e-mails were damaging because they suggested scientists were trying to manipulate data to make climate change sound worse than it is. An investigation is ongoing, but by all accounts it wasn’t a great conspiracy – just one or two people getting excited.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is made up of 4000 climate scientists and it assesses mountains of data. Neither the e-mails, nor the data they refer to, change the overwhelming consensus among independent scientists that climate change is the biggest threat ever to have faced mankind, which has the potential to wipe humanity from the face of the earth, along with most other species. The climate crisis has been created since the Industrial Revolution because we’ve burned fossil fuels more quickly than the earth’s atmosphere can cope with.

Climate scientists are almost entirely united in believing we need to reduce CO2 by 40% by 2020, and by 80-95% by 2050. The scientific evidence is as overwhelming as that which links smoking to lung cancer, or HIV to AIDS.

While newspapers have been focussing on the important but rather tiny fraud at Anglia Uni - most people (those who disbelieve climate change) are still unaware that they’ve been the victims of a massive fraud. The Global Climate Coalition includes oil, car and coal companies. Despite the fact that the GCC's own scientists reported in 1995 that the impact of the greenhouse effect on humanity could not be denied, they (and many other vested interests) have employed PR companies to con the general public into believing global warming either doesn't exist, or that it’s perfectly natural.

So if you're still one of the 'flat-earthists' or 'luddites' Gordon Brown recently referred to, you might like to consider for a moment that every argument you have against the idea of man-made climate change has been created by a PR company. Whether you think global warming is down to natural cycles, cosmic rays or solar activity, that it’s a lefty conspiracy, that computer models are inaccurate – whatever reason you have for burying your head in the sand – you've been conned by fraudsters.

Thankfully, even though many ordinary people continue to be manipulated, politicians both here and around the world have seen through the lies of Big Oil and the US Christian right. Copenhagen is the largest and most important conference ever to have taken place. Regardless of what it achieved – the fact that it happened at all should be the cause for enormous celebration.

More info:
Books to read (Amazon links)
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming - Click here
The Heat is on: Climate Crisis, the Cover-up, the Prescription - Click here
Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis - and What We Can Do to Avert Disaster - Click here

Cap & Trade
This is the complex and controversial system at heart of the Copenhagen negotiations. Cap & Trade is currently the best idea the world has for reducing global CO2 emissions while stimulating growth and investment. It's unpopular with some left-wing environmentalists because it provides a market-based solution. It's unpopular with right wingers because it seeks to provide financial assistance to help the world's poorest countries adapt to low carbon technologies.
To watch a short film explaining Cap & Trade - Click here
To watch a short anti-Cap & Trade film - Click here

Are you still a climate change denier?
I still get people writing to me saying there needs to be an open debate on climate change (well if you read the Daily Mail or the Express, what do you expect?!) Instead, why not read read through some unspun facts on the Met Office website. This is written in plain English by people who know what they're talking about - not by journalists and newspaper editors!
For the Met Office climate change pages - Click here
For the Met Office leaflet, Climate Change: the facts - Click here
Another great booklet is The Royal Society's 'Climate Change Controversies' - Click here

C O S T A I N     C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
L O C A T E D   I N   T H E   U K   A N D   T H E   I S L E   O F   M A N
+ 4 4   ( 0 )   7 9 2 0   8 5 4   9 0 4         F F I N L O @ C O S T A I N C O M M U N I C A T I O N S . C O M