Your Interview: Send questions to Green MEP Keith Taylor

Your Interview: Send questions to Green MEP Keith Taylor

Your Interview: Send questions to Green MEP Keith Taylor

First published in News
Last updated

Taking the hot-seat in this week's Your Interview feature is newly re-elected MEP Keith Taylor.

The Green Party politician will continue to serve South East England as MEP following the European Election results on Sunday.

Now's your chance to ask quiz him on policy, opinion and more.

Send your questions to ben.leo@theargus.co.uk or leave a comment below.

Alternatively, call 01273 544 525

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:21pm Thu 29 May 14

afterovid says...

What do you intend to do about the failure of competence, the failure of vision, the failure of competency, the failure of responsibility and the failure to understand the meaning of democracy that the Green Party has carried out in Brighton since being elected?
What do you intend to do about the failure of competence, the failure of vision, the failure of competency, the failure of responsibility and the failure to understand the meaning of democracy that the Green Party has carried out in Brighton since being elected? afterovid
  • Score: 11

12:35pm Thu 29 May 14

Darcstar says...

Why are the Green's staying mute on the lack of disclosure about the Solar Radiation Management that is going on above our heads ? ( a.k.a. : Geo Engineering / Stratospheric Aerosol Injection / Chem Trails / Weather Modification )
Thanks
Why are the Green's staying mute on the lack of disclosure about the Solar Radiation Management that is going on above our heads ? ( a.k.a. : Geo Engineering / Stratospheric Aerosol Injection / Chem Trails / Weather Modification ) Thanks Darcstar
  • Score: 22

12:40pm Thu 29 May 14

Nosfaratu says...

afterovid wrote:
What do you intend to do about the failure of competence, the failure of vision, the failure of competency, the failure of responsibility and the failure to understand the meaning of democracy that the Green Party has carried out in Brighton since being elected?
Hear-hear. Perfect, cannot have said better myself.
[quote][p][bold]afterovid[/bold] wrote: What do you intend to do about the failure of competence, the failure of vision, the failure of competency, the failure of responsibility and the failure to understand the meaning of democracy that the Green Party has carried out in Brighton since being elected?[/p][/quote]Hear-hear. Perfect, cannot have said better myself. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 6

12:43pm Thu 29 May 14

Nosfaratu says...

Darcstar wrote:
Why are the Green's staying mute on the lack of disclosure about the Solar Radiation Management that is going on above our heads ? ( a.k.a. : Geo Engineering / Stratospheric Aerosol Injection / Chem Trails / Weather Modification )
Thanks
Really ? Did not see that on News 24. Q. Are Aliens involved, not the Polish ones.
[quote][p][bold]Darcstar[/bold] wrote: Why are the Green's staying mute on the lack of disclosure about the Solar Radiation Management that is going on above our heads ? ( a.k.a. : Geo Engineering / Stratospheric Aerosol Injection / Chem Trails / Weather Modification ) Thanks[/p][/quote]Really ? Did not see that on News 24. Q. Are Aliens involved, not the Polish ones. Nosfaratu
  • Score: -9

12:50pm Thu 29 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Your latest manifesto is such a mass of contradictions, I hardly know which question to ask.

You claim to favour community adhesion whilst ignoring the fact that mass immigration (something the Greens are in favour of) have not only destroyed centuries-old communities but have created ghettos. It has also led to increased levels of pollution, which contradicts neatly your aim to reduce them.

So, my question: how do you intend to square your "We should not tolerate the long-term presence of large numbers of people whose
immigration status is not defined." with your intention to give them an amnesty, as in your "We would open up ways for existing illegal migrants who have been here for three years to become legal. In particular, a
legal status must be provided for people who have not succeeded in their claim for humanitarian protection but who cannot be returned to their country of origin due to the political situation there. " ???
Your latest manifesto is such a mass of contradictions, I hardly know which question to ask. You claim to favour community adhesion whilst ignoring the fact that mass immigration (something the Greens are in favour of) have not only destroyed centuries-old communities but have created ghettos. It has also led to increased levels of pollution, which contradicts neatly your aim to reduce them. So, my question: how do you intend to square your "We should not tolerate the long-term presence of large numbers of people whose immigration status is not defined." with your intention to give them an amnesty, as in your "We would open up ways for existing illegal migrants who have been here for three years to become legal. In particular, a legal status must be provided for people who have not succeeded in their claim for humanitarian protection but who cannot be returned to their country of origin due to the political situation there. " ??? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 4

1:06pm Thu 29 May 14

Quiterie says...

You recently claimed that the Government is failing to deal with inequality. What would you do to reduce inequality?
You recently claimed that the Government is failing to deal with inequality. What would you do to reduce inequality? Quiterie
  • Score: 6

1:23pm Thu 29 May 14

Quiterie says...

The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way?
The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way? Quiterie
  • Score: 4

1:47pm Thu 29 May 14

Mr chock says...

Darcstar wrote:
Why are the Green's staying mute on the lack of disclosure about the Solar Radiation Management that is going on above our heads ? ( a.k.a. : Geo Engineering / Stratospheric Aerosol Injection / Chem Trails / Weather Modification )
Thanks
ohh .. this is interesting for the greens to comment on .. Solar power ...
.. i spoke with some "gathering at the Level a few days back about the Contrails and the guy i spoke with was clearly very concerned that every vapour trail in the sky was "chemical seeding of the population "with mind altering drugs ..
my question for him was easy and he did not know the answer who is funding it and how are they also not being affected by the chemical seeding of the population
[quote][p][bold]Darcstar[/bold] wrote: Why are the Green's staying mute on the lack of disclosure about the Solar Radiation Management that is going on above our heads ? ( a.k.a. : Geo Engineering / Stratospheric Aerosol Injection / Chem Trails / Weather Modification ) Thanks[/p][/quote]ohh .. this is interesting for the greens to comment on .. Solar power ... .. i spoke with some "gathering at the Level a few days back about the Contrails and the guy i spoke with was clearly very concerned that every vapour trail in the sky was "chemical seeding of the population "with mind altering drugs .. my question for him was easy and he did not know the answer who is funding it and how are they also not being affected by the chemical seeding of the population Mr chock
  • Score: -13

2:23pm Thu 29 May 14

Quiterie says...

Darcstar wrote:
Why are the Green's staying mute on the lack of disclosure about the Solar Radiation Management that is going on above our heads ? ( a.k.a. : Geo Engineering / Stratospheric Aerosol Injection / Chem Trails / Weather Modification )
Thanks
Blimey!!! Whoever's "modifying the weather" isn't doing a very good job!
[quote][p][bold]Darcstar[/bold] wrote: Why are the Green's staying mute on the lack of disclosure about the Solar Radiation Management that is going on above our heads ? ( a.k.a. : Geo Engineering / Stratospheric Aerosol Injection / Chem Trails / Weather Modification ) Thanks[/p][/quote]Blimey!!! Whoever's "modifying the weather" isn't doing a very good job! Quiterie
  • Score: 7

3:34pm Thu 29 May 14

Gribbet says...

Quiterie wrote:
The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way?
I don't think someone can really be considered poor if they have the means to jet off on overseas holidays no matter how cheap the air fares.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way?[/p][/quote]I don't think someone can really be considered poor if they have the means to jet off on overseas holidays no matter how cheap the air fares. Gribbet
  • Score: -12

6:15pm Thu 29 May 14

Quiterie says...

Gribbet wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way?
I don't think someone can really be considered poor if they have the means to jet off on overseas holidays no matter how cheap the air fares.
It depends how you define "poor". The definition used by the Civil Aviation Authority suggests around 13 million people on low incomes take flights each year.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way?[/p][/quote]I don't think someone can really be considered poor if they have the means to jet off on overseas holidays no matter how cheap the air fares.[/p][/quote]It depends how you define "poor". The definition used by the Civil Aviation Authority suggests around 13 million people on low incomes take flights each year. Quiterie
  • Score: 5

8:31pm Thu 29 May 14

angrymonkey says...

its cheaper now to jump on a plane to Spain than a train to London at times now which is nice but tax should not be put on flying we need to get more into the uk and think about the money it bring into the uk. If look how Dubai and how they invested in airports as they know how much money it brings in and jobs for local people.
with the long hall tax which I think has now been taken down to match the EU before it was cheaper for people to fly into Europe than the uk and off to where ever this cost the uk money we should be fighting for it.
its cheaper now to jump on a plane to Spain than a train to London at times now which is nice but tax should not be put on flying we need to get more into the uk and think about the money it bring into the uk. If look how Dubai and how they invested in airports as they know how much money it brings in and jobs for local people. with the long hall tax which I think has now been taken down to match the EU before it was cheaper for people to fly into Europe than the uk and off to where ever this cost the uk money we should be fighting for it. angrymonkey
  • Score: 5

9:15pm Thu 29 May 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Mr Taylor, how would you advise the Greens to behave in order to recover their reputation in the city?
Mr Taylor, how would you advise the Greens to behave in order to recover their reputation in the city? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 5

9:18pm Thu 29 May 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Mr Taylor, could you ask Caroline Lucas to confirm via you how many houses she and/or her husband own/mortgage or they jointly own in their names or any associated business names in the UK and abroad?
If there are multiple homes can you also confirm if they are tenanted and if not are lights and heating left on in winter months?
Mr Taylor, could you ask Caroline Lucas to confirm via you how many houses she and/or her husband own/mortgage or they jointly own in their names or any associated business names in the UK and abroad? If there are multiple homes can you also confirm if they are tenanted and if not are lights and heating left on in winter months? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 7

9:31pm Thu 29 May 14

We love Red Billy says...

Having seen you climb the podium on you re election, will you be making strenuous efforts to loose some of the result of excellent lunches in Brussells?
Having seen you climb the podium on you re election, will you be making strenuous efforts to loose some of the result of excellent lunches in Brussells? We love Red Billy
  • Score: 9

10:58pm Thu 29 May 14

west hove says...

Despite all the whinger's in the Argus comments section the Greens (and Labour) still did very well in the Euro elections and Ukip faired poorly in Brighton & Hove. Does this give you as much pleasure as it does me?
Despite all the whinger's in the Argus comments section the Greens (and Labour) still did very well in the Euro elections and Ukip faired poorly in Brighton & Hove. Does this give you as much pleasure as it does me? west hove
  • Score: -6

11:50pm Thu 29 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

west hove wrote:
Despite all the whinger's in the Argus comments section the Greens (and Labour) still did very well in the Euro elections and Ukip faired poorly in Brighton & Hove. Does this give you as much pleasure as it does me?
I don't think that UKIP gave a rat's ar*se about the result in Brighton and Hove, tbh.

I certainly didn't, especially as some there seem to thing the world revolves around the place.
[quote][p][bold]west hove[/bold] wrote: Despite all the whinger's in the Argus comments section the Greens (and Labour) still did very well in the Euro elections and Ukip faired poorly in Brighton & Hove. Does this give you as much pleasure as it does me?[/p][/quote]I don't think that UKIP gave a rat's ar*se about the result in Brighton and Hove, tbh. I certainly didn't, especially as some there seem to thing the world revolves around the place. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -3

2:20am Fri 30 May 14

Gribbet says...

Quiterie wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way?
I don't think someone can really be considered poor if they have the means to jet off on overseas holidays no matter how cheap the air fares.
It depends how you define "poor". The definition used by the Civil Aviation Authority suggests around 13 million people on low incomes take flights each year.
In that case, I wouldn't consider those people on low incomes to be in the 'poor' category.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way?[/p][/quote]I don't think someone can really be considered poor if they have the means to jet off on overseas holidays no matter how cheap the air fares.[/p][/quote]It depends how you define "poor". The definition used by the Civil Aviation Authority suggests around 13 million people on low incomes take flights each year.[/p][/quote]In that case, I wouldn't consider those people on low incomes to be in the 'poor' category. Gribbet
  • Score: -1

8:32am Fri 30 May 14

pachallis says...

Gribbet wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way?
I don't think someone can really be considered poor if they have the means to jet off on overseas holidays no matter how cheap the air fares.
It depends how you define "poor". The definition used by the Civil Aviation Authority suggests around 13 million people on low incomes take flights each year.
In that case, I wouldn't consider those people on low incomes to be in the 'poor' category.
@Gribbet - 'poor' is both a very qualitative and emotive term.

If we use the term 'poverty' then the UK government measures take 60 per cent of median income as the poverty line.

The problem with this is it doesn't really measure what I would call real 'poverty' but instead measures differentials of income. It doesn't mean that a family in 'poverty' is starving or has no clothes. but instead means that if, for example over half the households can afford Sky HD Movies and fibre broadband then not having these makes you 'living in poverty'.

Similarly the 13 million people on 'low income' are not necessarily poor or in poverty. It may well be that they have below 60% of medium income and are quite happy to save up over the year in order to afford a holiday abroad.

It's a bit like 'fuel poverty' being homes that spend more than 10% of their household income on fuel to keep their home in a 'satisfactory' condition. What size house? What size of family?
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: The increase in air travel in recent years has benefited the poor with more and more people on low incomes able to afford flights (according to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority). You are against the expansion of airport capacity and are in favour of increasing aviation taxes. Both of these things would mean that the poor would be much less likely to be able to afford air travel. Why would you want to increase inequality in this way?[/p][/quote]I don't think someone can really be considered poor if they have the means to jet off on overseas holidays no matter how cheap the air fares.[/p][/quote]It depends how you define "poor". The definition used by the Civil Aviation Authority suggests around 13 million people on low incomes take flights each year.[/p][/quote]In that case, I wouldn't consider those people on low incomes to be in the 'poor' category.[/p][/quote]@Gribbet - 'poor' is both a very qualitative and emotive term. If we use the term 'poverty' then the UK government measures take 60 per cent of median income as the poverty line. The problem with this is it doesn't really measure what I would call real 'poverty' but instead measures differentials of income. It doesn't mean that a family in 'poverty' is starving or has no clothes. but instead means that if, for example over half the households can afford Sky HD Movies and fibre broadband then not having these makes you 'living in poverty'. Similarly the 13 million people on 'low income' are not necessarily poor or in poverty. It may well be that they have below 60% of medium income and are quite happy to save up over the year in order to afford a holiday abroad. It's a bit like 'fuel poverty' being homes that spend more than 10% of their household income on fuel to keep their home in a 'satisfactory' condition. What size house? What size of family? pachallis
  • Score: 1

8:44am Fri 30 May 14

HJarrs says...

My question is...

In some other EU countries the media takes the European Union seriously, with regular informative reports and programmes. Given the almost complete blackout of what is happening in the EU parliament and Commission, what do you think the EU parliament can do to reach out and reconnect to the people they represent?

Additionally, what do you think the EU does well and what is does badly, what would you do to reform the EU and how can this be achieved?
My question is... In some other EU countries the media takes the European Union seriously, with regular informative reports and programmes. Given the almost complete blackout of what is happening in the EU parliament and Commission, what do you think the EU parliament can do to reach out and reconnect to the people they represent? Additionally, what do you think the EU does well and what is does badly, what would you do to reform the EU and how can this be achieved? HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:47am Fri 30 May 14

HJarrs says...

HJarrs wrote:
My question is...

In some other EU countries the media takes the European Union seriously, with regular informative reports and programmes. Given the almost complete blackout of what is happening in the EU parliament and Commission, what do you think the EU parliament can do to reach out and reconnect to the people they represent?

Additionally, what do you think the EU does well and what is does badly, what would you do to reform the EU and how can this be achieved?
My amended question is...

In some other EU countries, the media takes the European Union seriously, with regular informative reports and programmes. Given the almost complete blackout in the UK of what is happening in the EU parliament and Commission, what do you think the EU parliament can do to reach out and reconnect to the people in the UK that they represent?

Additionally, what do you think the EU does well, what it does badly, what would you do to reform the EU and how can this be achieved?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: My question is... In some other EU countries the media takes the European Union seriously, with regular informative reports and programmes. Given the almost complete blackout of what is happening in the EU parliament and Commission, what do you think the EU parliament can do to reach out and reconnect to the people they represent? Additionally, what do you think the EU does well and what is does badly, what would you do to reform the EU and how can this be achieved?[/p][/quote]My amended question is... In some other EU countries, the media takes the European Union seriously, with regular informative reports and programmes. Given the almost complete blackout in the UK of what is happening in the EU parliament and Commission, what do you think the EU parliament can do to reach out and reconnect to the people in the UK that they represent? Additionally, what do you think the EU does well, what it does badly, what would you do to reform the EU and how can this be achieved? HJarrs
  • Score: -3

9:09am Fri 30 May 14

pachallis says...

Questions for Keith Taylor

1. The communist party no longer seems to exist as a separate political party and it seems that many of their anti-capitalist activists have moved to the Green Party to form the Green-Left who now seem to control Green Party policy. Is this a necessary change of direction for the Green Party away from being a centre pro-environment party? Is the Green Party really focussed on the environment anymore or is it now pushing for socialist change?

2. You have published detail of policies that the Green party, if ever elected, would follow including protecting pensions and ending fuel poverty; nationalising rail and energy companies; abolishing tuition fees and increasing Higher Education spending; and increasing science funding. How does the Green Party intend to fund these schemes? Will it be by taxing companies and individuals more? Will it be by following socialist principles and just printing more money?

3. The Green Party prides itself in being a group of individually minded activists with no leader, or whip, only conveners. How does the Green Party decide what policies should be followed? For example – who validated that there should be 20mph limits introduced and where they went? Who ensures that the 20 mph zones are actually being followed (especially by council vehicles) and that this is actually improving road safely? Who is addressing the issue that an apparent increase in bike and bus usage that the Greens are claiming has actually resulted in increased emission levels in Brighton & Hove City centre?

4. The Green Party is totally against the use of fracking (it is the only party AFAIK with this view) and is really against any use of fossil fuels and wants to ‘leave them in the ground’. It wants the UK to set an example to the world by adopting a Zero Carbon Britain by (I believe) 2030. What is the point of implementing Zero Carbon Britain if the rest of the world continues to exploit carbon based fuels? Would it not be better to follow the recent UN approved Global Climate Policy and start switching from coal and diesel to methane (including gas from fracking that is extracted safely) to reduce global emissions? What would a move to Zero Carbon Britain mean to the residents of the UK? How would lifestyles have to change? What would be the impact of energy costs (we know that the Green’s wanted above inflation increases to energy costs to encourage moves to renewables, and that large energy suppliers are already subsidising renewable energy installations in the UK)?

5. The Green Party is still really only very small with just 1 activist MP, 1 minority-led council, and 3 MEPs out of over 80 representing the UK. Other than being a protest vote and a meeting point for anti-capitalists, left-wingers, feminists and eco-activists, what is the point supporting the Green Party?

6. If the country does decide to leave the EU, what would you do instead of being an MEP?
Questions for Keith Taylor 1. The communist party no longer seems to exist as a separate political party and it seems that many of their anti-capitalist activists have moved to the Green Party to form the Green-Left who now seem to control Green Party policy. Is this a necessary change of direction for the Green Party away from being a centre pro-environment party? Is the Green Party really focussed on the environment anymore or is it now pushing for socialist change? 2. You have published detail of policies that the Green party, if ever elected, would follow including protecting pensions and ending fuel poverty; nationalising rail and energy companies; abolishing tuition fees and increasing Higher Education spending; and increasing science funding. How does the Green Party intend to fund these schemes? Will it be by taxing companies and individuals more? Will it be by following socialist principles and just printing more money? 3. The Green Party prides itself in being a group of individually minded activists with no leader, or whip, only conveners. How does the Green Party decide what policies should be followed? For example – who validated that there should be 20mph limits introduced and where they went? Who ensures that the 20 mph zones are actually being followed (especially by council vehicles) and that this is actually improving road safely? Who is addressing the issue that an apparent increase in bike and bus usage that the Greens are claiming has actually resulted in increased emission levels in Brighton & Hove City centre? 4. The Green Party is totally against the use of fracking (it is the only party AFAIK with this view) and is really against any use of fossil fuels and wants to ‘leave them in the ground’. It wants the UK to set an example to the world by adopting a Zero Carbon Britain by (I believe) 2030. What is the point of implementing Zero Carbon Britain if the rest of the world continues to exploit carbon based fuels? Would it not be better to follow the recent UN approved Global Climate Policy and start switching from coal and diesel to methane (including gas from fracking that is extracted safely) to reduce global emissions? What would a move to Zero Carbon Britain mean to the residents of the UK? How would lifestyles have to change? What would be the impact of energy costs (we know that the Green’s wanted above inflation increases to energy costs to encourage moves to renewables, and that large energy suppliers are already subsidising renewable energy installations in the UK)? 5. The Green Party is still really only very small with just 1 activist MP, 1 minority-led council, and 3 MEPs out of over 80 representing the UK. Other than being a protest vote and a meeting point for anti-capitalists, left-wingers, feminists and eco-activists, what is the point supporting the Green Party? 6. If the country does decide to leave the EU, what would you do instead of being an MEP? pachallis
  • Score: 1

11:17am Fri 30 May 14

billy goat-gruff says...

How disappointed are you that ukip and other far right parties get blanket coverage in the media (Farage is never off the BBC) whilst the Greens' successes (number of Euro MEPs up 50%) go largely unreported? How are the Greens in Europe working towards a more equal, fairer society whilst having respect for the planet we all share?
How disappointed are you that ukip and other far right parties get blanket coverage in the media (Farage is never off the BBC) whilst the Greens' successes (number of Euro MEPs up 50%) go largely unreported? How are the Greens in Europe working towards a more equal, fairer society whilst having respect for the planet we all share? billy goat-gruff
  • Score: 1

2:12pm Fri 30 May 14

VirusRec says...

Considering UK gov has admitted to small scale tests of Geoengineering which can be seen across the UK on a regular basis why are the Green Party reluctant to speak out?
If this is being use to mitigate Climate Change why is the UK Gov dept of funding the aerosol programs???
Considering UK gov has admitted to small scale tests of Geoengineering which can be seen across the UK on a regular basis why are the Green Party reluctant to speak out? If this is being use to mitigate Climate Change why is the UK Gov dept of funding the aerosol programs??? VirusRec
  • Score: 5

3:34pm Fri 30 May 14

pachallis says...

VirusRec wrote:
Considering UK gov has admitted to small scale tests of Geoengineering which can be seen across the UK on a regular basis why are the Green Party reluctant to speak out?
If this is being use to mitigate Climate Change why is the UK Gov dept of funding the aerosol programs???
@VirusRec - why should anyone speak out about 'geoengineering'? What's wrong with it? Based upon the Wikipedia article it is just a science:

Geoengineering or Geotechnical Engineering deals with the discovery, development, and production and use of subsurface earth resources, as well as the design and construction of earth works. Geoengineering is the application of geosciences, where mechanics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and geology are used to understand and shape our interaction with the earth. Geoengineers work in areas of (1) mining, including surface and subsurface excavations, and rock burst mitigation; (2) energy, including hydraulic fracturing and drilling for exploration and production of water, oil, or gas; (3) infrastructure, including underground transportation systems and isolation of nuclear and hazardous wastes; and (4) environment, including groundwater flow, contaminant transport and remediation, and hydraulic structures.

Sounds quite sensible to me to understand the earth's geology? Or are you calling the fracking tests 'geoengineering'?

And what are the 'aerosol programs' you mention? Please elucidate.
[quote][p][bold]VirusRec[/bold] wrote: Considering UK gov has admitted to small scale tests of Geoengineering which can be seen across the UK on a regular basis why are the Green Party reluctant to speak out? If this is being use to mitigate Climate Change why is the UK Gov dept of funding the aerosol programs???[/p][/quote]@VirusRec - why should anyone speak out about 'geoengineering'? What's wrong with it? Based upon the Wikipedia article it is just a science: Geoengineering or Geotechnical Engineering deals with the discovery, development, and production and use of subsurface earth resources, as well as the design and construction of earth works. Geoengineering is the application of geosciences, where mechanics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and geology are used to understand and shape our interaction with the earth. Geoengineers work in areas of (1) mining, including surface and subsurface excavations, and rock burst mitigation; (2) energy, including hydraulic fracturing and drilling for exploration and production of water, oil, or gas; (3) infrastructure, including underground transportation systems and isolation of nuclear and hazardous wastes; and (4) environment, including groundwater flow, contaminant transport and remediation, and hydraulic structures. Sounds quite sensible to me to understand the earth's geology? Or are you calling the fracking tests 'geoengineering'? And what are the 'aerosol programs' you mention? Please elucidate. pachallis
  • Score: -5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree