It's STILL not enough!!

Now I am not an irrational man - (pause to allow laughter of any friends reading this to subside) - but if there is one current social evil which drives me to fury it is the practice of motorists using mobile (cell) phones while driving- sometimes at high speed and on winding roads where both hands and full concentration on the job of driving is called for. I think I am a good driver but I am not so arrogant that I believe I can talk to my best pal, take a call from my bank manager and steer my car one handed through busy traffic.



These people are idiots. There has been a law in place in Britain to stop this practice since December 2003 yet it is flouted so regularly and with such contempt that the Government has been forced to increase the punishment for anyone caught on a cell phone while the car is in motion to - wait for it - a £60 fine and for the first time - horror on horror - three points on your licence!! What a joke! It is a more dangerous practice, in my view, than some of the road traffic offences that get really draconian punishment - like doing 50mph in a 40mph zone while concentrating fully on the road and having your wits about you!

Considering how hard it is for the police to have eyes everywhere I would suggest, on current income levels and the obsession people have to glue a phone to their ear 24/7, this so-called deterrent will achieve precious little.

Of course there are always bloody idiots like Nigel Humphries from the Association of British Drivers, who believe that any legislation aimed at motorists is a threat and who says "There are quite a lot of people out there who are perfectly capable of holding a conversation on a mobile phone while the driving comes first." Nigel have you read the Highway Code? Have you looked at the Driving Test standards? How many motorists would pass a driving test with one hand on the wheel and the other holding a cell phone to their ear? None. It is NOT safe, even for the best of drivers, to drive in that fashion and guys like Humphries should be more responsible than that.

Frankly, I believe the threat of imprisonment ought to be on the statute book, certainly for anyone caught for the third or fourth time doing this. OK I'm an old fashioned despot but the danger in which other road users, drivers and pedestrians alike, are placed by the irresponsible use of cell phones by arrogant drivers who think they are above the law is not reflected in the punishment - not by a long chalk!

So the 'Oscar' s did confirm the 'Brits'

It was good to see Helen Mirren follow her 'Brits' success in the big one, winning the best actress Oscar for her role as 'The Queen' and very endearing too, to see her interview where she modestly gave all the credit to Lizzie Windsor, saying 'It's the Queen they are really honouring, I am just wearing the suit!'

I've always felt, as I said, in my 'Brits' piece that Helen Mirren could have done better with her career. She has in the past chosen some 'dodgy' vehicles on which to demonstrate her talent but talent there is in abundance and its great to see it recognised last night.




Forest Whitaker won the best actor, again replicating his 'Brits' success and was a popular winner although here there was a lot of sentimental hope for Peter O' Toole for his role in 'Venus'. An American friend came out with a phrase I hadn't heard before to describe Whitaker's performance as 'chewin' up the scenery' and I guess the performance might be a little OTT but then so was the real monster.





I suppose the really popular winner with almost every film buff was Martin Scorsese finally getting the reward his terrific talent deserved by being hailed Best Director after finally coming good on his 6th nomination for the award.



Finally just one beef. Why can't the US hold the Oscars in the afternoon so I have a chance to watch it live? Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

Killed and injured on the altar of dogma!

Yesterday in Britain's Lake District a train came off the rails at high speed and the coaches tumbled down an embankment. One elderly lady was killed and five people lie seriously injured in hospital. Experts suggest that the bolts on a portion of track were loose. It is the latest in a pattern of train accidents since the mid 90s to which some aspect of poor maintenance or lack of investment can be attributed.

In 1999 at Ladbroke Grove, 31 people were killed when two trains collided because of a signal failure. In 2000 four people were killed and 35 injured at Hatfield when a train was derailed because of a broken rail. In 2002 at Potters Bar, 7 people were killed and 70 injured as a result of a derailment caused by faultily maintained points.



Points and track not checked and maintained properly, under investment in signalling equipment and a complete failure to implement ATP (Automatic Train Protection) because of the expense.

Why? Well in my opinion it goes back to the decision of John Major's Conservative Government in 1992 to privatise Britain's railways. The way it was done was so crass that we have been living with the consequences ever since. There were voices that said 'if you must privatise then simply take British Rail en bloc out of state hands and make it a private company'.

However the wise(?) heads in the Tory government decided not to do that and instead they created a whole new set of structures. One plc called Railtrack would administer the track and equipment while other companies would be created to run competitive train services on that track. Furthermore if the train companies were unable to meet their timetable due to track problems they could sue claim compensation to the tune of £'000 from Railtrack.

So here you have a bunch of profit oriented rail operators and a company responsible for the track which was under capitalised from the start and which from its birth faced the nightmare of track maintenance and keeping the train operators happy with little financial reward and a lot of liability. So what happens? Short cuts are taken, Routine servicing is cut back, outside suppliers are used on a cheapest tender basis. All this when you are responsible for peoples lives.

The hideous consequences of Conservative dogma have now come home to roost in a series of appalling crashes and the accusation hanging over all of them is carelessness and neglect. The Labour Government has already fired Railtrack and set up Network Rail, but it is only tinkering with the periphery of the problem. British Rail needs to be re created and supported out of taxation as it always used to be - very successfully, before Conservative dogma created the lunacy we have today.

The wounded poodle limps towards the setting sun.

If Tony Blair really was a dog he would be put down to save him additional pain. This week Blair has been mauled by the courts over nuclear energy consultation ( about which I have posted) and today he and his assumed successor Gordon Brown have been savaged by the Appeal Court over collapsed pension schemes. They had already been accused of maladministration by the Pensions Ombudsman (in fact a woman, Ann Abraham) and today the Appeals Court confirmed her judgment saying that the Government had no right to reject her findings outright and that the Government was liable for the millions of pounds lost by pensioners when their pensions schemes collapsed. The Court ruled that the Treasury's poor and misleading advice had severely exacerbated the problem.

So the former Teflon Tony, reeling from 2 blows already, then hears that his personal assistant, Ruth Turner, has been interviewed under caution by the police for the second time in the 'cash for honours' corruption enquiry. The noose is getting ever closer to 10 Downing Street and some bookmakers are taking bets on whether Blair will be arrested before he leaves office.

On top of all this Blair had to stand up in the House of Commons at lunchtime and announce the withdrawal of 1600 British troops from Iraq. He must have hoped , back in 2003 when this war crime was initiated, that British troops would return in triumph - a job completed and a fully stable and democratic Iraq in place, allowing everyone to forget the means by which it came about.

Sadly for him this is not the case. The killings have increased, the insurgents are more firmly entrenched than ever and the troops are facing an impossible situation amid hostility and distrust. Sure 5000 are left to assist the Iraqi government 'maintain stability' - well that's a hoot for start!!

It puts the final seal on a Premiership which started with so much glitz and glamour and is staggering to its ultimate painful end amid sleaze and failure on every front.

It is to be hoped that Bush's poodle soon takes that long road to the retirement kennels. He won't be missed!!

Congestion charge creates a new prize for thieves

The London anti-traffic congestion scheme, which currently charges drivers £8 (about $15) to drive into the centre of London, was expanded today, doubled in size in fact, to take in the boroughs of Westminster, Chelsea and Kensington. It has of course been the subject of furious rows before and since its inception, but it does seem to have had the desired effect of drastically reducing the traffic flowing through central London. A lot of the money thus acquired by the Mayor's office has been re-invested in improved public transport facilities and, all in all, the scheme seems to be a success.





One unexpected victim of the success of this scheme has been the unfortunate disabled person who possesses a Blue Badge - giving the holder permission to drive into and park in London without charge. Given that the congestion charge is £8 a day, these badges have suddenly attained a considerable value and, it is said, they are changing hands in pubs for the incredible price of £1600!



No wonder then that hospitals, clinics, theatres etc are reporting that, in their disabled persons car parks, row after row of car is being broken into and the Blue Badge stolen from the dashboard.

It's disgusting that people sink so low. But given that they do, surely it is not beyond the wit of mankind in this technological age to come up with some means of recognition which defeats this kind of theft? It would be no good applying it permanently to a vehicle,for that would limit the options of the disabled to use alternative vehicles but surely we could do something like embed a photograph into the pass, impossible to detach or scrape off? The current badges have no photograph at all and its only if you get caught in a check that your true identity would be revealed - and how often does that happen? It's because, once in your possession, the likelihood of your being discovered as a fraud is so remote that the badges are such a popular target for thieves. We ought to be able to do better.

A truly uplifting tale

In the world of medicine doctors are often called upon to try the unexpected but with little Lewis Goodfellow, born premature at 24 weeks and weighing only 1lb 8 ounces he truly was given a stimulating prescription which appears to have saved his life.



The little boy had lung failure and was struggling to get oxygen into his bloodstream so the doctors at Newcastle Royal Infirmary tried something drastic - they gave him Viagra, more usually of course associated with a remedy for people of my age - and for an entirely different purpose!

It is often forgotten that Viagra -or Sildenafil to give it its medical name - was originally developed as a treatment for angina , its propensities to cure erectile dysfunction being discovered as a side benefit. In the case of little Lewis, small blood vessels in the heart were opened up so the little boy could take oxygen into his bloodstream.

Now his grateful parents, who had been preparing for the baby's funeral, have their little lad well on the way to full recovery. It is a terrific story of doctor's using the unorthodox and getting a result.

Give thanks for an independent judiciary!

Yesterday, some of my faith in the institutions of the United Kingdom, a faith frequently tarnished by politicians, was restored by a judgment in the High Court. Mr. Justice Sullivan ruled that a challenge from the environment protection group, 'Greenpeace' to the British Government's plans for more nuclear power stations was 'well founded'. The Judge ruled that 'something had clearly gone radically wrong with the consultation process' and that the Government must 'go back to the drawing board'.



Now the odd thing is that for once I agree with Tony Blair in his assertion that a reversion to an emphasis on nuclear power is probably a better option than alternative fuels which create greenhouse gases. I think his energy policy is probably the right one.

However yesterday's judgment emphasised that, whether the policy is right or wrong, Government will not be allowed to produce imperatives in the guise of consultation documents and hope to get away with it. The judge was clear and damning in his judgment that the Government's energy report, 'The Energy Challenge' released last year, was not only short on information from which the public could make an informed decision but in places was 'downright misleading'.




'Greenpeace' is hardly an organisation which has endeared itself to the establishment with some high profile and anger inducing 'stunts' in the past to draw attention to its cause. One can imagine that in some countries the judges might have taken the soft option and turned a blind eye to any deficiencies in the government's approach.

It IS reassuring to know that we have judges who will back an unpopular litigant and tell the British Government that they have to rethink their options, go back to the drawing board, not try to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

It is a facet of our society for which we should be extremely grateful

A problem spiralling out of control

One of the saddest sights you can see on television is the face of a bereaved mother whose child has died, and particularly when that death is a violent one.





Even sadder, because it's a never ending event loop, is the face of the Afro Caribbean mother who appears, tearful and distraught because her young teenage son has just been shot dead, and says 'The community must come together. This senseless violence has to stop.' But sadly it never does. They are empty words - understandable, of course - but they have been echoed by bereaved mothers in almost every problem suburb of every major city in Britain. From Toxteth in Liverpool, MossSide in Manchester, Handsworth in Birmingham, and now the current centre of attention, the areas of Peckham, Streatham and Clapham in South London.

Three young boys, average age 15, have been shot dead in the last 2 weeks, one in full public view at an ice rink in Streatham, the others shot dead in their beds after the gunmen broke into the houses. It's horrifying, and a face of modern Britain which appals everyone

There is no use in pussy footing around with political correctness here. The police haven't. They have set up a special unit called Trident which deals with the problems of black on black crime. It has reached epidemic proportions in certain parts of all our major cities.

I don't know what the answer is to the gang and drugs culture endemic in these societies but it seems to me that somehow an entire culture has to be changed. Its no good local councillors waffling on about the lack of sports clubs and table tennis tables for the kids to play on. Somehow a really brave attempt has to be made to infiltrate these gangs and dismantle them. I don't believe increasing sentences for gun possession is the answer or even part of the answer. The sentences are already steep and the kids still import guns.

One of the problems, of course, is lack of trust of white society. People will not go to the police partly out of fear, and partly because 'sorting out the boys is a community issue'. Well it's bigger than that and Britain is in the grip of an, admittedly community localised, gun crime problem which it is patently ill equipped to resolve. Maybe more black police officers, some working under cover, would help but how do we get those resources on board...and how do we get them to work against factions of their own community in a way so many perceive as a betrayal? It will be a hard and long road but it has to be taken before more and more of Britain's black children leave their mothers and fathers weeping at the graveside.

A squalid piece of co-operation

Now I seem, inadvertently, to be knocking the United States of late in my political pieces on this blog so I won't do it in this one - well not exactly. However I share the anger of the Council of Europe in its damning report, published today, condemning all the European member states who allowed the CIA to operate rendition flights on their territory. One of the countries thus condemned is, naturally, the United Kingdom.

The report, extremely critical of the whole US policy in dealing with terrorism through circumnavigating its own constitution, has damned Britain, Italy and Germany, and 11 others, for allowing its air space knowingly to be used by these flights which, according to the report, are strictly in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. They point out, correctly, that the nation which built principles safeguarding human rights into its Constitution, cynically chose to avoid having to exercise those safeguards by building Guantanamo and other 'black holes' where people could be taken for interrogation and torture well outside the remit of the US constitution and of prying international eyes.

The fact that the British could wittingly go along with this policy, providing landing and take off facilities for such a nefarious purpose while pretending not to know anything about them fills me with disgust. Of course all the justifications are trotted out, 'Islamic threat so great that all tactics are justified', 'one has to balance security and liberty' etc etc.



Much of this is bullshit. I do not accept that the threat posed by Islamic terrorists justifies the jettisoning of hundreds of years of laws which safeguard the human being in favour of some archaic principle of 'take him somewhere secret and beat the crap out of him'.

Until every nation respects international human rights for everyone - even Islamic terror suspects - the anger and discontent within the Muslim community at these Stalinist tactics will simply simmer and grow until there is a world wide conflagration. Human rights for everyone - like the sticker about the puppy - are not just there for Christmas. They are there for life.

Feisty Chicks and patriotic sheep

The once maligned Dixie Chicks completed an amazing renaissance last night when they dominated the prestigious 'Grammy' awards with five prizes including best album, best song and best performance by a country group.

This from a band which could hardly get any work for two years after singer Natalie Maines made some intemperate remarks about US President George Bush in London in 2003.



The consequence of those remarks appears to have been a wave of revulsion which spread round an extremely nationalistic nation, then in the patriotic upsurge of the Iraq invasion, (though it is rumoured that the patriotic backlash was co-ordinated by Bush's then Chief-of-Staff, Karl Rove) to the point where the Chicks career was more or less destroyed overnight and no more records were forthcoming for two years.

It's amusing -and ironic - that that the single for which they won one of their awards is called 'I'm not ready to make nice'- which is a pointed rebuff to any suggestion that the group either apologises or in any way regrets the actions of Miss Maines . regardless of what happened in consequence.

It's great that the Chicks are back. I like them personally but it's more than that. It's the pleasure of seeing talent resurface over political chicanery. Now they are being rebuilt and lauded by the same institutions which would not touch them with a barge pole when it was considered that they were too much of a 'hot potato' for venturing into unpatriotic territory.

Which brings me, inevitably, to one aspect of the American psyche which I constantly find troubling and that is the very overt sense of patriotism which, it seems, can be easily manipulated- particularly when the country is at 'war'. Such a wave of patriotic indignation can be aroused in the United States that even pop groups can be washed away by it if enough self -righteous ranting is generated across the air waves. I think it's great to feel good about your country - I don't feel too badly about my own - but I think its highly dangerous when that is manifested in a show of flags and prayers and the obligatory close for all political speeches, 'God bless America!' because it deludes some people into believing He does! The consequence of that, of course, is that you never question the decisions your leaders make, particularly when there is a patriotic 'hook' - and that's really bloody dangerous!

I know it is frequently said that the British are too cynical. That we have no faith in anything or anybody. I don't believe it's quite that. I think we have a healthy disrespect for the machinations of politicians no matter how powerful they are. I think we assess pop stars for what they are. Nobody considers them to be political emissaries of any substance. Nobody stopped the Sex Pistols from performing during the punk era after their 'Anarchy in the UK' album and their attacks on the Queen. N-one coordinated a campaign to have them driven out because the establishment was ruffled. Our establishment was above all that. The Pistols carried on in their snarling nasty way until Sid killed Nancy and they came to a predictable end.

The Dixie Chicks haven't changed. They are still the same band -rueful no doubt - but unbending. The war in Iraq is still there. George Bush is still there. So what has changed to bring the Chicks back into the fold? Simple! America is losing the war in Iraq, George Bush's percentage points are at an all time low and people have simply changed their minds about Bush.

So the same herd of sheep which kicked them out of the paddock now welcomes them back with open arms in a turn around of breath taking proportions. Great that they're back - but should any group of pop performers be sacrificed on some altar of manipulated nationalism? I don't think so and I really think it's a facet of American thinking which can be really dangerous when the wrong cabal takes charge in D.C.

Does it really matter?

Sometimes I wonder about the sense of perspective of the human race. The leader of Britain's Conservative Party, David Cameron (on whom I have done a piece before on this blog) has come under the media spotlight for SENSATIONAL revelations that could affect his aspirations to be Prime Minister - it is alleged that he smoked cannabis at school when he was 15!!



I mean, for God's sake! Who bloody cares? The odd thing is that his critics are not, predominantly, in the opposition Labour Party but in his own Conservative Party from some of the old buffers who 'fought to make this country what it is today' etc. etc.

There are lots of reasons why I think Cameron would not make a good Prime Minister, as I said in my earlier piece, but smoking pot at 15 is not one of them.

I can understand why the media think it's important that all candidates for our highest political office have their pasts scrutinised - after all we don't want murderers, rapists etc to get the job but if thats all they have on him they should lay off.

Cameron's biggest mistake now is not to come clean. He hasn't even got as far as the Clinton bullshit of 'Yeah but I didn't inhale'. Cameron is choosing to say coyly, 'Well I might and I might not - whats it got to do with you?'. In my opinion its not going to go away unless he faces the issue. If I were him I'd say 'Yes I smoked cannabis like loads of other kids. Doesn't make it right but it doesn't make me an evil person either. Judge me on my adult record' - and I think he would gain kudos from doing that. Waffling seems to me to invite disaster but that links back to my earlier post, for maybe that is his great weakness. Waffling is, I think, David Cameron's stock in trade.

But why was it EVER kept secret?

A row has erupted between the United States and Britain over the release of a tape which records the so called 'friendly fire' incident in Iraq where Lance Corporal Matty Hull was killed in 2003 when two US planes opened fire on a British convoy.



At the inquest into Lance Corporal Hull's death, the coroner had requested access to the tape as material evidence. The request was refused by the Ministry of Defence acting on instructions from the Pentagon and the coroner expressed his anger at the decision.

Now today that tape is secret no more. It has been leaked, by person or persons unknown, to the 'Sun' newspaper who in turn have made copies for the TV news services - so its out in the open.

OK, the leak is illegal and the Americans are rightly furious over that, doubting the integrity of Britain's Defence Ministry, for the tape had to be leaked by someone there, surely.

The question is, why was the Pentagon so adamant that the tape should not be released? Oddly enough, what it shows is a sense of responsibility by the American pilots that goes a long way to changing an image which is rife in Britain, fair or unfair, that many of the US air force pilots are 'cowboys'. This impression, maybe first obtained via images from Vietnam, has become embedded in the UK.

The pilots are heard describing the potential target to their command post and if any degree of nonchalance could be levelled it is to the ground command who persistently tell the pilots that there are no 'friendlies' in the area. The pilots ask twice, three times if this is correct and are told 'Go for it, take 'em out'



Again they query their instructions and again they are reassured. The strike is made and then command comes back, with no apparent emotion, and says 'looks like we have a blue on blue situation, guys.'. It is clear that the two US pilots, far from being 'cowboys', have done their level best to ascertain whether they have a legitimate target and when they discover the error, both are totally distraught and one is clearly weeping.

I suppose, from the point of military protectionism, one might suggest that the Pentagon is not over keen to have revealed how misinformed the pilots were by ground control about British forces operating in the area but I feel they would have been better served to allow the coroner's court to have the tape and to use it discreetly.

Now it is all over the national news and friction has developed between the two nations over the leak.

There is an uncomfortable concern though about the number of 'friendly fire' incidents which involve the American military in the role of perpetrators. I accept that they represent the largest number of combatants and thus are likely, numerically, to make more mistakes but there seems little evidence of 'friendly fire' on anything like the same scale from other participants in this, and other, allied conflicts - and this point was made by a defence strategist today, so its not just my lay musing. Maybe the training of the US military is not quite as perfect as the Pentagon would like everyone to believe.

07/02

A late night news update on this story is that the Pentagon has now agreed that an edited version of the tape can go to the coroners court but they are now insisting that the coroners court is closed to the public - which has started another argument. What has further been conceded that the two young US pilots were National Guardsmen with no combat experience and that their basic training did NOT include any friendly forces markings recognition. Thus despite the fact that British convoys have used orange surface markings since the time of the first Iraq war, these two pilots were unaware of the fact. Surely something needs to be done and fast about that!

Please! Not the Imperial guilt complex!

It has been announced that Britain is to have a revised national schools curriculum where children are to learn new exciting languages like Mandarin and Arabic plus topics such as global warming and the slave trade will be compulsory. New writers are to be encouraged who will be taught alongside the likes of Shakespeare and Chaucer.

All this is great. I have no problem with our children learning more current history and assimilating topics to which our multi-cultural society can all relate and I welcome innovation. I fear, however, that some of this stuff is driven by the urge to appease these disciples of multi-culturalism who think that we owe our minorities some concessions and that teaching arabic, for example, shows the Muslims that we care.

OK lets teach our kids Arabic. Certainly it will enable them to talk more readily to Mustapha and Abdulla who sit two desks away, but who should be learning English. However in the wide world outside, forgive me, but I still think a knowledge of French, German or Spanish would serve any child of mine in better stead.



I have no problem with kids learning about the slave trade. So they should. I did, along with learning about Trafalgar, Agincourt, the Black Death and the Norman Conquest. Ah but thats not good enough. Apparently the slave trade now has to be taught as some kind of speciality. Presumably we will get a lot of Afro Caribbean teachers only too keen to demonstrate their expertise in this area and explain to all Britain's black children how their birthright was sold out by the evil Brits. This is what worries me. That instead of us harmonising our society we are continually going to emphasise the negatives of our past and continue to allow this sense of imperial guilt to intrude into all our dealings with our ethnic minorities.

By all means lets broaden the curriculum. By all means lets bring it up to date. Let's understand a little more about other cultures. But let us never forget that the reason people are living in this country is because they presumably want to assimilate into our society - we should not be expected to have to assimilate into theirs - or carry too much of a burden for past political and social abuses.

Why all the bally-hoo?

On Wednesday, nine men were arrested in dawn raids in various parts of the city of Birmingham, in what police described as an 'intelligence-led operation'. Well 'Intelligence' may have led it but I saw little sign of intelligence in the way it was subsequently handled.

The media very quickly gained information, not just on the raids themselves, but on the ethnic background of the people arrested and that the arrested men were planning to kidnap a British soldier, decapitate him, and show the execution over the internet.

The West Midlands Police held a much delayed press conference at which Assistant Chief Constable David Shaw tried to dampen down much of the speculation about the arrests and the nature of the intended crime - but by then it was too late. Newspapers and TV had been awash with the story and its presumed gruesome intent all day.



No one has yet been charged with this intended crime yet the most sensational and lurid details are circulating around the press and TV. How and why? If the planning was good enough to keep the raids secret from the suspects, why was it impossible to keep these other details from the press until person or persons had been charged?

The raids were quite clearly in the Muslim parts of the city, the proposed crime is quite obviously an Al-Queda style execution and the combination is certain to stir up tension in areas where people already feel that their community is under hostile focus.

Did the police release all this detailed information to the media or did this 'leak' stem from the Home Office in order for John Reid to justify ever more repressive anti terrorist laws? The last time such a raid occurred, a similar 'Intelligence led operation', Muslims were arrested amid great publicity and then quietly released with no fanfare when it was discovered there was no basis for action to be taken against them.



For the sake of the credibility of the Intelligence Services and the police it is hoped the same outcome is not repeated here!.

So it's official - it IS our fault!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting in Paris, has said that after the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken it is 'over 90% certain' that the activities of the human race are responsible for a frightening increase in global warming, much faster than was previously forecast. World temperatures may rise by an average of 4C by the end of the century and sea levels could rise by up to 43cm.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, said: "It is extremely encouraging in that the science has moved on from what was possible in the Third Assessment Report.



"If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are."

The implications of this are quite terrifying for the future of the planet yet, because to take sufficient action to slow this down will take draconian remedies, I suspect national governments will STILL hedge and vacillate about doing anything because the consequences will be felt by future generations but world leaders want to be re-elected NEXT term. It is living for now and sticking collective heads in the sand

There is no doubt that correcting this headlong rush to global extinction is going to take a cooperative act of selflessness and generosity by every nation on earth. Tbe United States produces 22% of all the worlds carbon emissions but President Bush is only prepared to tinker on the periphery of the problem. China, striving to be a world economic leader, still runs its industry and domestic households on coal. To persuade these two giants to change, in their different ways, a lifestyle to which each has grown accustomed will take a massive act of will.

Kyoto, which has bound most of the world to carbon emission reduction targets (though not China or the U.S. unfortunately) expires soon and nothing has been put in its place. However whatever might be put in place will be useless unless the two nations who, between them, are responsible for nearly 50% of the worlds greenhouse gases, are prepared to look at the grim future, take a deep breath and make political decisions which will bring massive unpopularity. Whether either have the courage to do so may determine the future lives of millions.