成人论坛

The only people that will end up paying more, will be as usual, the public.
These are people with nothing better to do with their money.

I think it will definitely help and is better than the flight tax to pay for trees idea!
Pop stars help bring issues to the masses but as a Chemical Engineer I've been aware of the global warming issues for ages!

Nice idea. And good to see them putting their money where their mouths are. But, of course, in itself not enough. The energy market in the US is worth one trillion a year and the energy market globally about two trillion a year. Even Chris Martin and his mates can't afford to influence that.

I think that it is a great idea, artists are always talking about what we then general public should do and then they swan off back to their luxury lives. By actually putting their hands in their own pockets they are encouraging us to do the same.

They will also have an influence on the generation that matter in terms of Global Warming, the teenagers and kids of today are the ones who will be suffering if we don't do something soon, theses stars are setting one example that young people might just follow....

Great idea - although I guess retiring the credit will make little or no difference, it does increase awareness.

It will take billions to influence the carbon trading market significantly. I can't see how a few trades by pop stars can be anything other than symbolic. Until the USA, China and India come on board 100%, nothing's going to change.

Does anyone know who is behind Global Cool? Where their financing is coming from or who the main driving forces of the organisation are?

Brilliant idea. Great to see celebrities making a positive social contribution and taking the ethical high ground over politicians' inertia

"Can pop take on global warming"
No !

Now can we concentrate on the government madness for today which is single parents being driven from benefits to work at super casinos and more tax revenue being gained via the misery of gambling addiction no doublt the majority being the working class !

No more stupid questions please !

I think this is great. I cannot find any information about how much a carbon credit costs. After a credit is purchased, can it be destroyed so that it can never be re-used? Is there any group or fund that average people can contribute to that buys up carbon credits to remove them from the world marketplace?

Carbon trading serves just one purpose and that is to raise awareness of global warming carbon issues. The pop world's proposal will simply divert resources. Perhaps it's better to change to pop consumer culture. After all industrial Asia is booming to the tune of this culture. Don't we western consumers own a lot of the co2 output by these industries producing the next plastic must-have thing for shipping to EU?

Does anyone know where I left my cigarettes?

Good on KT - a lovely gesture - but targeting carbon emissions at energy supplier level will just put prices up at consumer level. And because we really can't be bothered being green - despite the hype - we'll just moan about paying the hiked up prices rather than change our ways.

Better to refuse to let anyone use the wattage needed to play your music on anything other than a wind up gramaphone.

Maybe release hand written sheet music? on bark ? I hear that actually makes coldplay sound better.

Whether these folks are successful is highly doubtful, but it can't hurt to focus more attention to the problem of global warming. Carry on!

I thought Pop Stars were the very people who produced more CO2 than most, constantly flying round the World, buying mansions in several countries and using gas-guzzling cars to look big, etc. Not really the kind of people to lecture others!!

It will take more than a few pop stars to affect any CO2 trade balance, but it is specifically the symbolism which is important. Raising the profile, keeping it on the agenda, making it a voting issue will have an influence.

As was so eloquently pointed out by the short video competition entry on China, it is our demand that supports dirty producers, so a bit of individual responsibility when purchasing as well please.

That sounds like an awful lot of money - do they really have so much? It seems so obscene鈥�
I don't think that "Carbon Trading" even starts out to address the problem - it's just a cop-out for Carbon Junkies. They are only adding to the total emissions which will mean that they will only pass-on any increased costs. Major polluters should be heavily penalized in the same way as tipping hazardous waste - Not be allowed to "off-set" their dirty habits.
We all have to play our part in reducing waste for generations to come. I can imagine people digging out rubbish tips, in the same way as they do in places like Brazil now.

I am 68 years old my wife is 71 and disabled with the bad results of Diabetes: Kydney failure Dialysis etc.We recently have become interested in Nature programs on tv.One thing we notice is allthough Nature is beutiful in the wild it is very violent.I always notice the bigger animals are always eating the smaller ones and so on down the line.We are all living longer but not necessarily heathier because of our life styles and other reasons.I believe Mother Nature will always seek a balance and if it wasn't Global Warming then it would be something else.If the Dianasors were still around I dont think we would be worried about Global Warming.We would also be healthier from all the running we would be doing and there would be no over population thats for sure.Instead of all this trying to force big cos. to be responsible we should all start to consume less and less I bet the people involved in this movement are not going to give up their big cars and comfortable life styles.They might give up somethings they dont really use or need but when it comes to real sacrifices very few of us will choose the most demanding life style change.Posted Tue 1-30-2007 0730AM PT....

Of course ethical considerations constitute the basis upon which any socially acceptable practices and transitions are or rathar, should be followed............this is in the interest of the self, albeit the whole of man, upon which we each place a piece or a part of the puzzle of intelligence, nano-networking, gives us the power, for together we are one pretty impressive family and it is the responsibility of the rationally minded to share the common sense, don't you think? Afterall this is what sharing should be about, isn't it? Why would we want to share each other's crap and misery?
Let's share to effectively, manage our world, of which we all form a part to create our paradise, afterall.........we have been given the choice, the free will, the spirit........this is what it's all about boys and girls..........
Let's make this planet happen.........you know what i mean, jellybean?
We must relate, the information abounds.........Together we will clean up the environment and the better off we're all gonna be........that's for sure.
So the more people who get on the soul train for the sole purpose of optimal human development, well then that's a train we all wanna ride...........am i right?

I agree with the first comment - at the end of the day it's 'the common people' who'll pay - especially in my business as I have to buy C02 for my pub beer cellar!

It smacks of self-publicity

Mmmm! Let me think about this. Each year, a number tonnes of CO2 is allowed, so says the gov. If carbon credits are bought up and deliberately kept unused, then surely industry can simply ask that the next years limit is increased by the number of tonnes of CO2 that wasn't emitted the year previous. If I were an unscrupulous industry head, I would try that!

How about those nice wealthy people buy a wind farm, or a solar farm, or some other good thing that will last more than just a year or so.

If more well known people had the courage to make a stand we, and our politicians and so called business leaders might just be shamed into noticing that most of us are just fiddling while our planet is burning.

If it is sincere, then good for them for taking the initiative. If it is just another marketing stunt, then good for them for building awareness. Anything anyone can do has got to help a bit in a dire situation.

I presume KT Tunstall, Coldplay and Australian band Scissor Sisters all travel by rail or electric car to promote their films/movies?!

Here we go again Pop Stars out for more publicity - better than paying for advertising. They are not interested in the planet, only interested in themselves. As a previous contributer said we the public will end up paying more. If they are really interested persuade the Chinese and the Indian sub continent to to change their ways. Even if we stopped everthing that produces C02, even living, it would not make any difference.

Fine with me. In fact, I think someone ought to start an investment company which will simply buy arbon credits up, and hold them.

As for it being the public who will "pay" for the increased price, well, it's the public who has to live on this planet, unless someone has another one I don't know about to which we can all move should Earth become untenable.

I was impressed with the initiative to provide solar powered lighting to Indian villages. This replaced the use of kerosene lamps & had the additional benefits of providing a brighter, cleaner environment for the villagers which will enable the children to read after sundown & improve their educational opportunities.

Wouldn't initiatives such as that have a more widespread benefit, rather than pushing up the cost of their CDs by a penny or so?

I was impressed with the initiative to provide solar powered lighting to Indian villages. This replaced the use of kerosene lamps & had the additional benefits of providing a brighter, cleaner environment for the villagers which will enable the children to read after sundown & improve their educational opportunities.

Wouldn't initiatives such as that have a more widespread benefit, rather than pushing up the cost of their CDs by a penny or so?

The global energy market is worth about two trillion a year. The global pop market isn't. So even if every pop star were to divert 100% of their profits into retiring carbon credits it wouldn't solve the problem with emissions. But if these individuals are willing to divert their money in this way then good for them - and good for the example it might set others.

For those of you who are worried that in the end the consumer will have to pay for emissions. Yup. That's right. The point is that carbon is being priced because it is destroying our environment. And we will all have to pay for it. Not some evil government plan just basic economics.

The global energy market is worth about two trillion a year. The global pop market isn't. So even if every pop star were to divert 100% of their profits into retiring carbon credits it wouldn't solve the problem with emissions. But if these individuals are willing to divert their money in this way then good for them - and good for the example it might set others.

For those of you who are worried that in the end the consumer will have to pay for emissions. Yup. That's right. The point is that carbon is being priced because it is destroying our environment. And we will all have to pay for it. Not some evil government plan just basic economics.

Obviously they have more money than sense!

The global energy market is worth about two trillion a year. The global pop market isn't. So even if every pop star were to divert 100% of their profits into retiring carbon credits it wouldn't solve the problem with emissions. But if these individuals are willing to divert their money in this way then good for them - and good for the example it might set others.

For those of you who are worried that in the end the consumer will have to pay for emissions. Yup. That's right. The point is that carbon is being priced because it is destroying our environment. And we will all have to pay for it. Not some evil government plan just basic economics.

It seems that there has always been a sort of one-upmanship between singers who want to save the World, but where is Africa today? Still in massive turmoil. How is Aids evolving? Growing more than ever. So sing and stop exploiting people concerns about global issues, it sells well but does little.

It seems that there has always been a sort of one-upmanship between singers who want to save the World, but where is Africa today? Still in massive turmoil. How is Aids evolving? Growing more than ever. So sing and stop exploiting people concerns about global issues, it sells well but does little.

This is all for the good as far as I am concerned. The profile and importance of this issue has to be rapidly accellerated by every means possible. This will count; good for them and we all need to think of innovative ways to make a differnece and bring CO2 ommisssins down. Anything that can help this process has to be for the good. I concratulate their efforts and hope more "celebs" will jump on the band wagon. We all need to wake up!

Within a society that increasingly looks to its 'celebrities' as a focus of interest I see no reason why they should not take up the issue of 'climate change'. If this means that an issue of serious global consequence is highlighted and bought to the attention of the general public then this can only be of benefit. Quite frequently through the history of 'pop culture' artists have addressed areas of politics and issues of global importance which politicians would, or perhaps could not address, with varying degrees of success and credibility.

Obviously, the real issue at stake here though is that governments of the large polluters need to find ways to make lowering emissions attractive to industry. Countries with a developing economy such as China and India need viable alternatives to burning fossil fuels to build their economies. The price we may pay if this does not happen could have serious security consequences.

Obviously they have more money than sense!

I grew up reading nature books in the 70's and 80's telling us that the rain forests were being destroyed and therefore lots of species would die out.

It appears that we are one of the species being endangered now and still big business, the developing and developed economies will ignore the truth unless it effects their ability to make money.

This seems a great first move to deliver financial consequences for poor environmental decision making.

I grew up reading nature books in the 70's and 80's telling us that the rain forests were being destroyed and therefore lots of species would die out.

It appears that we are one of the species being endangered now and still big business, the developing and developed economies will ignore the truth unless it effects their ability to make money.

This seems a great first move to deliver financial consequences for poor environmental decision making.

The world as we know it will end one day; if not through global warming then for some other reason (e.g. global cooling, as the finite Sun burns out). Does it matter if it ends in 200 years or 2 billion years? The only difference is more people will be born and die if the world lasts longer. But those extra people are, right now, imaginary and will be realised only of we make sacrifices now. If we do not make the sacrifices they will never exist and so will never be a loss. Life is too short to worry without reason--especially when we worry about the conequences or our worrying! There are many real problems to solve . (Violent crime, our weird ability to make stars of Jade Goody and Victoria Beckham and adult illiteracy to name a few). As Joe Brown said, "What a crazy world we are livinmg in".

Chris Martin leading the way on global warming? The same Chris Martin who commutes by private jet when on tour?

We're in more trouble than I thought.

Another celebrity stunt for attention.
We already have the government looking at ways of screwing more taxes out of the struggling masses using green issues. Ask those involved if they will give up air travel, stretched limos or huge houses. The last holiday we had any where was 20 years ago. We only boil enough water in the kettle for a measured cup of tea. Turn off all power
go to bed early to keep warm - what else are we expected to sacrifice so the elite can be comfortable.

The old "carrot vs stick" debate. Why punish vs. reward? Focus instead on tax shifting. Specifically, gradually put in taxes on GHG emissions, but offset these with reductions in corporate income and payroll taxes. Increase and decrease the 2, respectively, over time. In this way, price signals will be given that GHG emissions (more than just CO2, remember) need to be reduced, and the financial incentive to invest in capital and R&D and to hire more people is provided. Net tax take to the gov't is designed to be roughly the same. Net taxes paid by proactive companies will drop, along with GHG emissions.

There are too many chefs in the bureaucratic kitchen at present, and they can't see the forest for the trees (despite the latter being good at sponging up CO2...)

"By refusing to re-sell carbon credits they hope to increase the price of carbon, and financially penalise firms which fail to meet targets."

Won't they just be increasing the very large windfalls for the companies that have an allocation?

I personally feel that the issue of Nuclear proliferation is of far greater immediate concern than global warming in terms of media exposure. Even a relatively small regional nuclear conflict (which some argue will become increasingly likely over the next few years) would have a devastating effect on the global climate. The international community seem to be sleep walking into a second nuclear age.

Who on earth cares what these half witted screaming, banjo strumming - so called "Pop stars" say or think. Like the band aid fiasco its part of the money making racket.

I wonder what their personal carbon footprints are? Flying all over the shop to promote their lavish lifestyles. Of course they can raise the profile and may encourage teenagers to whinge on about 4X4s, that is until they can afford to buy one themselves, at which point the environment goes out of the window.

Being percieved as being green is currrently good for any business - Vodafone, Tesco et al, so why not Chris Martin and Bono plc. Maybe they could help the environment by selling a few of their properties giving the money to their repsective causes and shutting up.

Anyway its too late to change whats happened to the global environmental situation, so if you can afford it, turn up the central heating, open the windows and get drunk (whilst smoking a fag) and listen to one of said artists on your 200watt stereo.

I personally feel the issue of Nuclear proliferation is of far greater immediate concern than global warming in terms of media exposure. Even a relatively small regional nuclear conflict (which some argue will become increasingly likely over the next few years) would have a devastating effect on the global climate. The international community seem to be sleep walking into a second nuclear age.

No need, it's too late already but nobody wants to admit it, there's an outbreak of 'Canute Mentality' in all politicians and they now want to cling onto whatever little hope is left, but none exists. We should accept the inevitable and relocate low lying towns, cities (i.e. London), commerce, industry and power generation (e.g. the UK has 22 powerstations within 5m of current sea level) to higher ground above the 150m mark.

When the last ice age ended the sea level rose in a series of three surges hundreds of years apart, the last surge rose sea levels by about 30m within a decade. Check the evidence of ice core samples taken from the Greenland glaciers. There is no warning but a surge could occure anytime in the next century, could be next year or 2020 or late, nobody knows but it's coming to a coastline near you.

No need, it's too late already but nobody wants to admit it, there's an outbreak of 'Canute Mentality' in all politicians and they now want to cling onto whatever little hope is left, but none exists. We should accept the inevitable and relocate low lying towns, cities (i.e. London), commerce, industry and power generation (e.g. the UK has 22 powerstations within 5m of current sea level) to higher ground above the 150m mark.

When the last ice age ended the sea level rose in a series of three surges hundreds of years apart, the last surge rose sea levels by about 30m within a decade. Check the evidence of ice core samples taken from the Greenland glaciers. There is no warning but a surge could occure anytime in the next century, could be next year or 2020 or late, nobody knows but it's coming to a coastline near you.

In the last few days two separate influential men told me they thought global warning is a big con. I was shocked but obviously the case is not been made sufficiently strong enough.

No need, it's too late already but nobody wants to admit it, there's an outbreak of 'Canute Mentality' in all politicians and they now want to cling onto whatever little hope is left, but none exists. We should accept the inevitable and relocate low lying towns, cities (i.e. London), commerce, industry and power generation (e.g. the UK has 22 powerstations within 5m of current sea level) to higher ground above the 150m mark.

When the last ice age ended the sea level rose in a series of three surges hundreds of years apart, the last surge rose sea levels by about 30m within a decade. Check the evidence of ice core samples taken from the Greenland glaciers. There is no warning but a surge could occure anytime in the next century, could be next year or 2020 or late, nobody knows but it's coming to a coastline near you.

I think that any campaign that can rise awareness of the general public about global warming and CO2 emissions trade is worth it, pop stars included.

Why should anyone worry? The world as we know it (with humans) will end one day regardless of what we do. If not global warming perhaps global cooling as the (finite)sun burns out. Does it matter more if that is in 200 years rather 2 billion years? What is the difference? More imaginary future people will be realised. They will also die. It is inevitable some poor souls will perish at the end. By worrying about all sorts of things we might make the world last longer, but it will be enjoyed only by people who will never exist if the world ends sooner. Why should we worry about "people" who will never exist? Life is too short to worry about that. There are too many important things to worry about (Violent crime,third world poverty, adult illiteracy, the serious social malaise that makes celebrities of the likes of Jade Goody and Victoria Beckham, HIV, rising asthma rates etc.) These affect REAL people, not imaginary future ones which may never be realised--unless we worry them into existence.
As for KT T. Stick to singing and wearing short skirts.

In the last few days two separate influential men told me they thought global warning is a big con. I was shocked but obviously the case is not been made sufficiently strong enough.

Coldplay backing the fight against global warming? That's pretty funny - considering Chris Martin (Coldplay) jets back and forth between gig location and home whilst on tour. May I refer discerning readers to www.turnuptheheat.org/?page_id=16
where some of the truths behind this particular 'sensational altruism' is exposed!

sThe equation works this way: Credibility is inversly proportional to the number of celebrities.

I'm astonished how short some peoples memories are! Let's not forget the MASSIVE impact Sir Bob Geldof made on famine in the 80's through his passion, leadership and yes, fame. It seems many respondents have a very narrow-minded, stereotypical view of popstars and are laying into them with accusations of lavish lifestyles, flying around the world and contributing more then anyone else to the CO2 problem. This is of course far from the truth. There will be popstars at both ends of the scale and I support any effort they may make to use some of their welath and status to make a differecne and raise awareness - no matter how snall that difference may be. I wonder what the cynics on this blog have done recently to solve the problem??

Stars have a right and an obligation, just like we do, to make a stand for what they belive in! They are just as much a part of the system as anyone else. They pay taxes, they Have a Right!

And my a remind the person who wrote this------"No more stupid questions please"

There are No Stupid Questions Just STUPID answers!!!

I totally agree with Tom King's remarks as follows:
"In the last few days two separate influential men told me they thought global warning is a big con. I was shocked but obviously the case is not been made sufficiently strong enough."
Plse relate to my comments made earlier.

How come only selected comments are put on display? Let the reader decide!!!!

Global warning can well be the result of too many people.One only has to look at the things we use today, as compared with 50 years ago,all heat and energy.Unless we can find some way of controlling the population growth,we face the fact of the human race going to its own extinction.Quite possibly it is a natural check on the human animal,which is busy destroying all other forms of life.So for pop-singers to join the band wagon will have little effect on global warning,but it will enhance the popularity of the artists concerned.

I think this is a good idea, as long as the offsets are supplemental to the stars' own efforts to reduce their personal carbon footprints. They should avoid giving the impression that we can fight global warming without ultimately changing our own lifestyles.

They also have to be careful what credits they buy: Coldplay's efforts to offset the emissions from producing their second album came rather embarrassingly unstuck.

If they concentrate on accredited programmes such as the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (an approach favoured by Defra) then they're on firmer ground, but even this is a developing market, and subject to disputes over its effectiveness and efficiency. For example, projects to reduce HFC emissions (a highly potent global warming gas) can make obscene levels of profit through the CDM. Over 60% of carbon credits generated so far have come from HFC projects, but it's far from obvious that the CDM is the best way of encouraging these schemes.

In my view, these are examples of the inevitable teething problems that come with a new market. I'm glad that celebrities are getting involved, thus increasing the profile of these schemes. If carbon trading is a practical way of reducing emissions, then the system should be able to withstand the increased scrutiny that this will bring.

I think this is a good idea. First, it's great to see wealthy people use their money for the good of others. Second, it may spur govenments to do the same - use their spending power to retire emissions credits, instead of letting them be purchased by firms which are unable or unwilling to control their own pollution.

Actually, what would help is if the entertainment industry stopped using tungsten sources to light its events and stopped trucking vast quantities of gear around - and I write as a lighting designer/director.

Every major tour that goes out boasts about the number of trucks used and the size of the generators used to power the show. Why not stop this?

While we're at it how much power does the Newsnight studio consume? Why is such a big area lit when most of the time only a head/ two-shot is used?

KC

Yes, money always helps to take a difficult decission

In reply to #26, Scott:

In the case of KT Tunstall she used a tour bus that ran on biodiesel fuel for her US tour last year. She also has paid for thousands of trees to be planted in Scotland to offset the carbon emissions generated by the production of her CDs.

I think it's best to get some facts before jumping to sarcastic conclusions.

You cannot con nature. Finally people realize it鈥檚 all but a money making racket blaming the warming of the atmosphere on CO2 emissions. Radioactive decay from a multitude of sources (huge losses of human life, animal, fish, bird, and plant life) and a multitude of chemical reactions is the real reason for the depletion of the Ozone layer, not CO2 emissions, that is my view, although we need to get a handle on these emissions that pollute our environment and toward that end everybody has to make an effort, or get killed by it. The real reason for the warming of the atmosphere is radioactive decay and the ensuing radiation (radiation implies heat) into the atmosphere. Transmutation of chemical elements occur through nuclear reactions in the nuclei of the decaying matter. It is this insidious and malicious culprit that destroys the Ozone layer and so much more, nature鈥檚 collaborator, which no man can get a handle on. It鈥檚 as a result of heat transfer (entropy) that鈥檚 quickly (soon, not a hundred yrs down the road) coming to an end and spontaneously brings about equilibrium. If this case has not been made sufficiently strong enough it鈥檚 because some people try to con others, making big bucks in the process. More in my book 鈥淭he Cosmic Hierarchy And Its Endless Variety鈥�, by Melanie Engels. However, nature will not be tricked. Therefore man鈥檚 understanding toward this occurrence needs to be encouraged for his own chances of survival, or panic will take over when the day arrives, and like stampedes, they kill in the process.

I think pop and movie stars will help to bring home to a wider range of people the seriousness of global warming. Bob Geldoph started it with band aide , Princess Diana particularly was known for her work against landmines, Elizabeth Taylor and others for aids.The world needs all the help it can get to highlight the severity of problems from poverty and starvation to global warming and the more "stars" who take part in these issues the better. Politicians are often thought to be acting in their own interests and let's face, it often they are.
Lorraine

I am not going to stop flying on holiday, whilst organic parsnips are imported by air from New Zealand.
Our contribution is to buy all our fresh vegetables and meat localy

I am not going to stop flying on holiday, whilst organic parsnips are imported by air from New Zealand.
Our contribution is to buy all our fresh vegetables and meat locally

I can't stand that sort of thing. It's simply self-promotion and moral high ground -climbing. If anyone wants to be more "green" (whatever that means), just think about where everything actually comes from, how many processes and people were involved in the production-transport-selling of it, and picking whatever has the least processes.

As an example, take a cooked potato. You can:

A. Go into your garden and pull one out of the ground, then boil it.

B. Drive to the supermarket, and buy a tin of potatoes, which have been grown on a huge farm, harvested by a man on a machine, collected by another man on a machine, taken to a processing plant to grade them, packed by another man into boxes, loaded by another man onto a truck, taken to another plant and offloaded by another man into a machine that peels them, passed to a canning machine where another man sits and stares at said machine, the can is then labelled and packed into boxes by another man, passed to a waiting lorry by another man, driven by another man to a depot where the can is then stacked by another man. The can is then placed with an order made by a man in a shop, and is taken by a man and put on a delivery truck, which is driven by another man to the shop, unloaded and stack by another man, awaiting you to come and pick it off the shelf as it's more convenient compared to peeling them yourself.

I missed out the process of mining tin, etc, for the can and the forestry-pulping-pressing-printing-etc for the label. Also the masses of promotion companies, HR people, managers, maintennance people, the processes of making the machines to make a tin of potatoes (which involves more people), etc. The list is endless.

If you think that's a lot of effort for a boiled potato, think how much is needed to promote a pop-star who wants to shout about being "green". Don't need carbon footprints, or anything else invented by economists to make it look like you're helping when you're not.

i think that is a fantastic idea ,we as a planet are tripling our carbon use every year , and what will happen when it is gone???
people live their lives with out thinking about what their lives will be like tomorrow!
no one person can end this climate crisis so we should all make the effort!!

kaitlin mckenzie x
11

the idea is quite beautiful.i hope other stars and infact all people of the world should in thier little ways join force in combating global warming.we have only one world let no one be tired of investing resouces inorder to protect it.is quite a noble course.i duff my hat for you.

Pop can take on Global Warming, & make everyone feel that we are doing our bit. Unfortunately, our Island nation has no influence over the power polluters of China, India & the USA. Our island nation always makes an effort in every aspect of this planet, from helping Children in Need, to Drought Victims in Africa, to Tsunami victims in the Far East. It is not us who need to change, but the rest of the political world.
We will always end up paying as this government see's another oppurtunity to tax us.

i think that it will only result in my parents paying more people buy cars and if you pump up the price up so its only more and who wants to buy a really expensive hydrogen powered fuel car? i think that the goverment should take everyones cars and replace them with global warming friendly cars so that people dont need to get themselves in deubt to be enviroment friendly or that but pop cannot engurage us to do this if we havent done it already then who says we will chamge if bands who are already rich enough to do all this crap already dont i mean come on with there massive buses driving them alomg with all their crap putting on more weight which results in more petrol which results in more pollution why should we do our bit if they dont??????????? converse princess xxxxx

yes i believe its a good idea but are these stars doing this for publicity??
and if they are will they do anything to personally help stop global warming??