Being a bit of a man-made climate change sceptic, I had to have a little chuckle over the result of E-Day. E-Day was billed as the UK's first energy saving day. Unfortunately for the organiser Dr Matt Prescott, when the energy consumed during the trial was measured it turned out to be slightly more than the "business-as-usual" projection. This could be blamed on a slight reduction in temperature during the day.
No doubt my little chuckle will enrage environmentalists. However, I also get a little peeved when I'm told by people such as Dr Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, that it's a "moral imperative" to believe in something that I'm very sceptical about. In a way I applaud Dr Prescott for trying to do something about a matter he passionately believes in. I also have no problem with the way he's gone about achieving his goals. The Doctor called on people to use freedom of choice to take action - and that, I'm all for. What I'm against is compulsion to pay green taxes.
The level of media attention for E-Day and the low level of public participation should send a message to our political leaders: whilst initiatives such as Dr Prescott's should be encouraged (they cost nothing, but could achieve a great deal), compulsion will only turn public opinion away from similar schemes. I'm a sceptic, but I'm willing to concede that I could be wrong. For that reason I do try to use as little power as possible. But I do this because it has no financial impact upon my family. There are many ways that our politicians could reduce CO2 emissions without taxing us all into poverty. Here's one stupid idea, that if they had the sense to scrap, could drastically reduce our CO2 output.