Politicians step into limelight at climate change hustings

Maxwell Kusi Obodum • Published 18 Feb 2010 09:18 6 Comments

Share this

VOTERS will be firing some burning questions to weigh up politicians' green credentials at a climate change-themed hustings meeting.

Reading West general election hopefuls will step into the limelight when Greater Reading Environmental Network's (GREN) hosts a meeting at Tilehurst Methodist Church in School Road at 7.30pm on Thursday, March 11. The two-hour session, chaired by Bishop of Reading, the Right Rev Stephen Cottrell, will let voters challenge the main parties on renewable energy, sustainability, transport, biodiversity and food production and how they will act over the next five years to avert global catastrophe.

Labour, Conservative and Green Party candidates Naz Sarkar, Alok Sharma and Adrian Windisch will take part but Lib Dem Daisy Benson will be absent, chairing a borough council scrutiny panel.

The event follows the success of GREN's Calling Copenhagen debate at Reading International Solidarity Centre (RISC) in November, when 100 people questioned leading scientists and climate change experts and Reading West MP Martin Salter, who is standing down at the election.

Mr Sarkar said: "The environment is top on many voters' agendas. We need to make sure we act now to commit firmly to tackle climate change with both national and international solutions. I hope the atmosphere is constructive as this is an area where we need a firm consensus."

Mr Sharma said: "I welcome the opportunity to take part in the GREN debate and put forward the Conservative case for dealing with issues such as climate change, energy security and sustainability."

Green Party Adrian Windisch said: "The main parties make big speeches about the environment but their actions don't match their words so this debate should be interesting. Science tells us that we have seven to eight years to reduce our emissions drastically to avoid climate change."

To submit a question in advance contact 0118 947 5961 or see www.gren.org.uk

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

Up for it
Unregistered User
Feb 18, 14:35
Report comment

Now this will be an interesting debate. Why cannot Daisy Benson get the deputy chair to take the scrutiny meeting? I am sure that the GREN's meeting will ask probing questions. Perhaps that is the problem, probing questions are not characteristic of scrutiny? The website of GREN states that questions can be asked of the following:- Environment, Energy Transport, Biodiversity, Sustainable Economy? Red rag to a bull.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Alec
Unregistered User
Feb 18, 19:27
Report comment

Given that the Libs have a decent record on the environment it's a bit poor of their candidate to not show up. Anyone can get out of a council meeting - what's the story?

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Alec
Unregistered User
Feb 18, 19:29
Report comment

Given that the Libs have a decent record on the environment it's a bit poor of their candidate to not show up. Anyone can get out of a council meeting - what's the story?

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Non-gullible voter
Unregistered User
Feb 19, 10:56
Report comment

Since it's now abundantly clear that the IPCC's assessments on "Global Warming" have been based on non pier-reviewed science (refusal of government-funded researchers to conform to FOI requests), cherry-picking of data (urban heat island predominance), hearsay (Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035), refusal to accept that the mediaeval warm period was much warmer than recent times (to support Michael Mann's now discredited hockey stick graph) and given that Climate Change is perfectly natural. I'd welcome the chance to vote for any party honest enough to admit that the whole scare was to do with creating world government and a tax-raising scam.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
sceptic sceptic
Unregistered User
Feb 19, 11:18
Report comment

Mr non-gullible, I was starting to have my doubts too, but found the below link a useful look at many of the most recent holes picked in the IPCC.

Some of the guff spoken by global warming people can be safely filed away in a box marked "alarmist propaganda", but this analysis is clearly written by someone who knows what they're on about, and it's worrying:

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-errors-facts-spin

You sound like your mind's made up so I'm sure you'll dismiss it, but I'd be keen to hear what you disagree with.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Howard Thomas
Unregistered User
Feb 24, 20:53
Report comment

Non gullible voter.......The Commonsense party reflects public opinion, and just about everyone we talk to thinks the whole global warming thing is bulls***.

Much of the 'evidence ' used by the IPCC has to be questioned after it appears that they will throw in anything that might help their cause(and future employment) if they get half a chance to!

The evidence might just as well have been written by Blair and Campbell in another of their 'dodgy dossiers'

There is technology out there , and has been for a long time that would make major reductions in vehicle emisissions as well as raising the mpg by 30 % , but government department's attitude to these are at best unhelpful. These are things that could easily 'save' the planet but nobody wants to know. Why ,I wonder, is it to do with the fact that the government don't believe in global warming any more than I do?, and all they are really interested in is future tax revenues!

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.

Follow @rdgchronicle