I agree we should endevour to protect the native species of our isles.
But also we need to be realistic and in some cases accept that we can't fight the inevitable, accept that some species may be unable to survive if our climate changes, Target our resources in areas where we can realisticaly make a difference and towards species that will thrive in a slightly warmer climate. Salmon in our southern rivers particularly may just have to be a casualty of climate change.
There will be some tough decisions to be made. I hope those that are involved in the decision making process have the strength and conviction to make the right ones.
More bullsh*t from the EA Carbon Trading doesn't work. Polluting countries just buy the emission credits off the less polluting nations who didn't them anyway and carry on as usual.
Carbon capture doesn't work and there is no largescale working example anywhere in the world. What there is, is a small test plant in Germany and one in the US. Then there's the aspect of whether it's a safe process or not. Complete waste of time and our money to pump something into the earth in the hope that it'll stay there. Only to find the rock strata has a fracture and it's leaking out again.
Then there's natural movement of rock stratas brought on by earthquakes. Yes even here we have quakes that move and fracture rock stratas The further you go east into Europe the more prone and intense the quakes are.
This theoretical process is a figment of the Boy Milliband's imagination!
"Carbon Capture" is a load of complete *******s if you ask me. Just another form of excuse to maintain the filthy fossil burners profits.
I have looked at the "principles" behind carbon capture and it's positively flawed.
What we need is a energy producing process that does NOT cause the release of ANY kind of pollutant. In the interim, the use of nuclear fission is the very best option we have. The wastes produced as a result of nuclear energy are positively minute compared with the burning of hydrocarbons.