Green taxes, apparently they will save the world. I on the other hand think that they are being mishandled and misused as a means for generating income off of people unfairly. Green taxes, at their best, are a means of penalising those that make active choices to do environmentally unfriendly things and to take money from them to actually go about solving this country's climate change issues.

At their worst, however, they are used to plug gaps in local governance finances with disregard to reality and to simply make it looks like something is being done to tackle climate change...even if it means telling supermarkets to generate more profits without a set plan on how to spend those profits on green initiatives.

As it happens David Cameron has wised up to this and becomes the only party leader so far to actually start thinking sensibly on the issue of climate change when it comes to Green Taxes, for whatever means that is.

So the first part of my thoughts goes to Environmentally charged changes in the budget, potentially one of the biggest political areas in the budget that turned out to be more than a damp squib.

Can I just say... HALLELUJAH! If there is a god then they have obviously heard our collective prayers because today's PMQs was far beyond head and shoulders above the rest of the recent events

The reason for this seems to be partly down to a slight reduction in the heckling, but in reality I believe it to be because of as much as half the amount of planted Labour questions, real issues being discussed, and perhaps through a lack of pressure a Prime Minister that actually answered questions better without the constant need to attack "the party opposite"

Unfortunately the bill I have previously asked people to support didn't get a simple hearing on Friday as the timings involved meant that the debate has been delayed. This isn't a bad thing of course, it just means a bit of a wait for the verdict from the MPs interested, the debate continues on the 14th (this coming Friday). So, of course, I urge people to continue to support this trial especially given that we can see from Hansard just how a minority of people seem to be opposed to any positive move for utterly petty reasoning.

The next episode of Politalks is now here, with thanks to Gavin Whenman who will for the foreseeable future be partnering me on the project. Video below is probably NSFW!

First we banned smoking in pubs, and there was general gratitude. Liberals, in fighting this particular battle, had won the case for all around liberty, not only in that of the smokers rights but also the rights of those around them. So why is it then that the so-called "liberals" of the Lib Dems are now trying to ban something else in way that acts so contradictorily to that previous philosophy of liberalism, patio heaters?

It's about time people started realising that the aim of reducing emissions is not to become carbon neutral, the world has an ecosystem and the planet has survived even huge industrialisation by man kind. Putting some carbon dioxide in to the air does not matter, it is when those levels are too high and stay too high for too long. If you're going to start assuming that people are not taking responsibility then you are turning in to an authoritarian who can only be seen as attempting to micromanage millions of individuals lives on a mass level. People deserve the basic respect and trust of their governments to do the right thing and manage their own lives, while being influenced by duties and educational material. Painting all patio heater users as inconsiderate world killers is not necessarily the truth and it undermines the message that we should all be sending out about reducing our emissions.

There is a train of thought in the world of Climate Change, and by Climate Change I'm talking about the Greenhouse effect, and that is that we are not currently suffering from the effects of our own doing and that in fact we are simply at a natural high point in terms of heat from the sun based on our history. Recent records don't necessarily indicate this, though they do indicate fluctuation. in the early 1900's the temperature on average rose by 0.25 Celsius, but then proceeded to drop again by 0.2 Celsius in the next 40 years after that. Now we are back on the temperature rise side of things and it does seem to be happening faster than it should for natural fluctuation. But all of this is based on a very short frame of reference and I for one feel that while the theories are all sound enough in their appearance, and that the action being proposed should be carried out regardless of our situation, the most prudent thing to do for the integrity of our actions is to actually widen that frame of reference

An article published in the New Scientist suggests that we can get details about solar heat strengths all the way back to the 1600's, greatly increasing our ability to understand the context of the climate that we are discussing so avidly in these recent times. It is vitally important, I feel, that this sort of work is done. If this Climate Change period turns out, as small as a chance as that appears, to be a natural freak occurrence then without having more information about solar patterns we can fall foul of people, especially industries that would really rather not spend money to become more green, bending the situation to their own means.

Me and my girlfriend are running late one day, we're due to go out with friends in town if I remember correctly, and when we got on our local First bus service we are charged £4.20 together for the privilege of being taken about 20 minutes (walk time) down the road. We look at each other with a little bit of shock, it would probably only cost us £6-8 to get a taxi from the luxury of our front door let alone after traipsing all the way up to the main road. We think, if we were a group of 3 or more, why would we get the bus?

In this post:

• The cost of public transport
• The environmental impact
• Politicians need to get involved more

Just a short one to muse about the Bali summit that is being tipped to be close to a deal of kinds involving all the key parties involved.

I think it's absolutely fantastic that we are close to an international consensus on the targets we should be aiming to achieve. That's right, the compromise deal is one reportedly where everyone absolutely understands and agrees to take into account a report that says reduction in emissions of 25-40% would be required to keep global warming within a 2 degree range by 2050. So what if it doesn't specifically mandate some targets on people?