Above all, I am sorry for the long hiatus.
I had a good laugh reading the above FB conversation. I got that from Failbook website, which is my favourite to release office tension and boredom (lucky it is not blocked, yet!).
In case you are not familiar with the term ‘daylight savings’, you can check it here. Though you can take this as a joke – well, converting to daylight savings mode doesn’t literally and directly means you are melting the icebergs, but if you refer to this campaign by Climate Action, you might see the relationship, albeit indirect:
Daylight saving could reduce CO2 emissions
A legislative move on Friday (3rd December 2010) could lead to the UK’s clocks being shifted forward in a move to make evenings lighter while reducing CO2 emissions.
An important parliamentary hurdle was passed, which could lead to a three year trial movement of UK clocks forward by one hour-in which time the impact of the change would be evaluated.
The private members bill championed by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris cleared its second reading by 92 votes to 10, and will now proceed to committee stage. The Lighter Later Campaign Manager Daniel Vockins said: “Britain may be blanketed in snow today, but the nation is one step closer to having more sunshine in our lives. This bill is proof that you can tackle climate change whilst making society better and happier.”
If passed, the bill would require the government to perform a cross-departmental analysis into the potential costs and benefits of moving the clocks forward. Campaigners believe it would lead to a reduction in energy use and CO2 emissions, cut road deaths, and boost tourism.
Caroline Lucas, the Green Party leader and MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “The problems of climate change and fuel poverty mean that the arguments for bringing the nation’s clocks into closer alignment with the hours of daylight are stronger than ever. Moving our clocks forward by an hour would bring a range of benefits.”
She added: “I would like to draw particular attention, again, to the substantial reductions in energy consumption and carbon emissions that would result from the simple and effective measures in the bill.”
The coalition behind the bill still has some parties to convince, including the Scottish Government, which has been hostile towards the proposal. Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Scottish Nationalist MP for Banff and Buchan, said regarding data on the potential impact of the change: “It is speculative, and is not based on empirical data. It does not take into account other relevant attendant factors that can influence this process, such as the weather.”
Whiteford also said that her constituents were “worried about the impact of the proposals on their quality of life.” She said that people are worried that the measure could compromise their safety.
The move has been supported by many people and organisations throughout the country. In a speech, Harris told MPs: “The fact that daylight saving has been championed by people all over the country and across the political spectrum suggests that it is not a party political issue.” She said that more than 300 organisations have backed the bill as part of the Lighter Later coalition, with advocates including the Beer and Pub Association, Greenpeace, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the AA, Parentline Plus and the Football Association.
With high majority support thus far, the passing of the bill appears likely, although further investigation into the impacts of the changes and other factors may be required to convince some Scottish MPs. It is anticipated that further evaluation now, as well as over the potential three year plan, could provide figures which are optimistic both in the fight for climate change and for society.
Author: Marianna Keen | Climate Action
In case you can’t see how this directly impacts the iceberg, I’d give you this simplified relationship: Daylight savings –> Reduce energy consumption e.g. lighting –> Reduce coal consumption (if it’s coal based)–> Reduce carbon emissions –> Less global warming potential –> Ice won’t melt easily. OK, you skeptics out there can laugh at this oversimplified, debatable correlations, but that’s the direction.
I have not updated myself with the latest verdict, but I’m pretty happy with the justification given, that this move will not only tackle climate change somehow, but also makes people happier.
I think that’s the essence of sustainability – increase quality of life by taking care of the environment among others. I must tell you, that though many have pretty much labelled me as an environmentalist, I am now a happily retired environmentalist. I have converted to be a proponent and advocate of sustainability, which is more holistic (relative to environmentalism, I have to stress) in approach.
You see, my point is, this person whose name and profile pic are safely concealed in green paint may be silly, but the relation is there.
Whatever you do, you might as well wonder whether it is giving a positive net change to the environment, or not. In case you don’t care, you have no right to complain about the heat.
With that, I thank you! =D