My understanding is that the causes of global warming are a matter of debate. As I read it…

One side say human activity is a causal factor. That side includes:

United Nations
World Meteorological Organization
The National Academy of Sciences
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Union of Concerned Scientists

The other side says it’s an entirely natural phenomenon, and there’s no need to stop using fossil fuels. that side includes:

Scientists who take money from oil companies
Scientists who have models of environmental change that haven’t caught on, but are willing to use the desire to avoid changes in fuel use to propagate their theories.

Whether that is true or not doesn’t appear to matter. A researcher in climate change and governance recently told me how the EU policy makers couldn’t give two shits what the science says; if it can’t be dressed up as beneficial for business, environmental policy change doesn’t happen.

I think we’re not going to see much in the way of a shift from our reliance on fossil fuels whilst the PNAC boys have aspirations in the middle east. We need to make fossil fuel use less attractive to consumers, and given the blight that motorised transport is on UK cities, banning HGVs and making making special lanes for HPVs seems like a great start.

Did I mention that I want one of these so bad it hurts?

ICE Monster