if (and yes, it might be a big if) we are on the verge of gradual yet ultimately cataclysmic climate change, then it ought to be at the top of the political agenda worldwide. it isn't, which brings out the "oh if they're not doing it why should we" attitudes i don't really like

because of that, i think it should be very very high, even if for the "better safe than sorry" approach. in an ideal world, anyway

That's really all I can say. It's a major issue, I believe all the science we've seen so far and if we don't do something, then BAD THINGS lie in the future.

So yes, it's a major issue and although it probably isn't a huge vote-winner, it needs to be at the top of people's agenda.

it should be on the agenda but not the number one priority

one for 'necessary' things to run the company (ie. health, police, transport etc) and one for everything else. That may clear up a lot of arguments to this end.

In this system I would say that environmental issues have to come at the top of the list of the non-necessary category.

Although setting the budget for each 'pot' may be a cause of contention.

just like all bad things. And in the middle of the century we'll laugh about how mental we all got about it. Like nuclear weapons.

you haven't expressed a political preference on this topic. are you feeling okay?

I'm not the science matters. Of what importance is it how far we have influenced climate chnage when the fact is that its here and it is going to effect us

http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/

up your agenda.

are you happy to put your hand in your pocket to back up your convictions?

As in, in the short term tackling climate change at a personal level is VERY expensive: changing your boiler, your car, the way your house is insulated and so on. Of course, the argument is that it will pay for itself eventually through cheaper bills, but this doesn't make the initial burden any easier to bear.

I know I personally couldn't afford to make those changes.

I think a lot (most?) people would agree with tackling climate change in principle, even if they are unsure about the science, but when it comes to the cold reality people might suddenly not care so much.

So, if you're a climate change convert, are you happy, or even able, to back up your beliefs?

whereas police, education, health are things that will be noticed now.

So with the best will in the world ultimately politicians will always get less flack for cutting from the envirionment than now. Meanwhile any attempts to bring in taxes/action to protect the environment will always be met with resistance and never be a vote-winner.

Obviously the environment is a major issue but it's not a vote winner and until we're imminently threatened with clear and obvious disaster* it always will be one of the soft options for cuts.

*For example the way that prior to last year's floods any council would have been given short shrift for any suggestion to invest in flood defences but directly afterwards there were questions about why so little money was spent on flood defences.

The reason that they are issues because of doing other things wrong and badly, and sweeping stuff under the carpet because there is never a 'lax' time due to adversorial politics.

Climate change is a big issue because its been saved up and because of which way the economy/industry/consumerism is pointing, which is away from 'sustain' and firmly geared to only operate in 'growth' mode.

The problems and reasons are enormous (I could list everything well many but... i wont)

Yes it will cost a lot for individuals if they have to replace boilers and stuff....but that is a useful way for administration to turn peoples focus to introspection and away from bigger route causes (Its not individuals who created the range of lifestyles that society tolerates to any degree)

IF you continually sweep problems under the carpet (which is what has been done with environmental issues)

Then when you lift the carpet up there is soo much that cannot possibly be tackled with the money that would keep a government popular enough for re-election (This is why so many governments just put the carpet back down again and pretend they havnt seen it ....witness the huge majority denial of climate change/human activity until a few years ago)

Climate change is not the most likely killer of the lives/lifestyle of most reading this board though......that is most likely to be the social/economic breakdown that is looming/threatening (I am not commentating just about the results in the news, these merely worry me that the underlying problems might be about to fruit.)

To tackle both the potential economic/social and environmental problems a co-alition government is the only hope for survival....hopefully this will allow politicians to debate and decide according to what is good for US....not just what is good for their party's re-election

phrases such qwuestions as above....."how high up the political agenda"

Anyway it would appear that for survival purposes there is a more imminant danger (as always witrh incompetant political systems that try to preserve status quo cos everything else can be presented as worse)

that of social/economic collapse (with no independant food or power or trading systems)

This should be highest up the agenda, if you like cliche.....and if we manage to survive then we will stumble and lurch on (and not address environmental stuff properly) till climate change becomes the next killa.

Water and food will become less available in other parts of the world (assuming we manage to change our social economy to work properly)
before climate change fully hits home here

:(

that cuts in public expenditure need to be made. If anything, and especially in a time of impending recession, they need to be increased.

Indeed I would place the environment of equal importance with health, police & education expenditure. However I don't believe that it is necessarily that expense to introduce positive environmental policies.

Obviously measures such as retrofitting public buildings and development of sustainable energy sources will cost a huge amount in the short run but other equally important measures can be introduced at little or no cost to public expenditure.

For instance the public sector can change its procurement procedures in order to use its contracts to affect positive change in company behaviour. For instance by including having robust environmental and sustainability policies as a requirement to tender for a contract.

Measures such as banning plastic bags or introducing a mandatory charge for them cost nothing. And using legislation to force both businesses and citizens to change behaviour patterns is an obviously effective method that is relatively light on the public purse, and in a lot of instances the consumers too. For instance making it a legal requirement that the cost of carbon offsetting be included in the price of air fares will mean a little more than £3.00 extra on the cost of an average flight.

increase temperatures and so teen stabbings.

are too little too late to change the major thrust of society/economic influenced environmental degredation.

The little things are good if we were already on the right track....all this stuff of focussing on the individual will not 'right' the problem.

It has been made easy for humans to have a modern lifestyle that 'fits in' with other 'modern lifestyles' things that dont fit in with this have been made more and more akward.

Fundamental rethinking of expected continued society economic growth needs reexaminging.....also all unecessary stuff should be reconsidered. Buit people are so caught up in their lifestyle aspirations that, until, they are brought around eventually, they will react very badly and viciously to........basically no-one thinks ahead beyond the news or 'how it will affect them'

Society nurtures weakness and short termism, it devalues individualism and extraordinary ability and seeks to impose the worst of (what was presented as communistic) levelling. it would appear to now be the major failing of society (having removed other, worse ills)

high.