Oh we could just grow up and admit the the whole problem is caused by our willfully uncontrolled breeding and finally take responsibility and limit the number of babies we have.

Thalia, London,

@ Andy Sherlow, London, Britain, what qualifications do you have?

Are you dependant on fat governmennt grants? Or do you not have the capacity to educate yourself beyond the fevered rantings of a deeply flawed green manifesto who's main goal is to halt 3rd world development?

DannyJ, England, UK

So, Terry you do not accept the global scientific consensus?

Good for you. And keep up the good fight against this so called gravity.

Seriously though, Ignore the facts and evidence established from research and peer evaluation and... and what? What is the alternative to fact and scientific based study?

Irwin Fletcher, London,

Reducing waste and pollution is common sense and should always be encouraged. Anthropogenic global warming, however, is utter nonsense.

Don, Phoenix,

They keep changing the information due to the 'divide and rule' theory of population control. Keep the public talking about the minor details and they won't spend their time picking holes in the whole misguided idea that we can somehow change earths weather. I liken modern 'greens' to the rain dancers of olden days.

Andrew, Belfast,

scientists who 'agree' with the man-made global-warming
scam are making a lot of money off government grants,
AlGore made $100 million off his scamumentary....
Follow the money and you'll see why this is promoted so
heavily!

Jerry, Miami, USA

" "If we accept the current global scientific consensus..."
I don't."

Great to see such stalwart confidence in one's own opinion.

Who needs an overwhelming weight of evidence, in a huge spread of disciplines, from independent scientists around the world, anyway? Trusty old 'Bah, humbug!' attitude is the only reasonable way forward..... right, Ms Korkham?

Reasonable Sceptic, Boston,

Actually, air travel produces less pollution than boats when you work out how much fuel a boat burns per mile, compared to a plane.

Why is it all these eco scare mongers keep changing the facts when it suits there needs?

Gary, Rochester,

Re the comment by Terry Korkham, exactly!

Sceptic, Devon, UK

Re: baths v showers, if you leave the bath full, you can use the bathwater to fill up the toilet cistern rather than wasting it down the drain.

Fuchsia, Leeds, UK

None of the above is relevent unless human population is considered.

wayne, huntingdon, cambs

Ms Korkham says 'If we accept the current global scientific consensus.., I don't.'

Yes - but what qualifications do you have and what evidence have you amassed which is superior to that of the UN's IPCC?

Meanwhile, the UK chugs along on diesel trains while the rest of Europe have all electric train networks.

The UK has 3%-4% renewable energy, Sweden and Austria are on 50% renewable and the EU as a whole, 14%.

Local councils in the UK recycle 35% of waste, and in Scandinavia the figure is over 80%.

So not only is your reader unqualified compared to the IPCC scientists and to policy makers in the rest of the EU, but the UK government, the Civil Service and the UK media owners are also evidently unqualified .

Andy Sherlow, London, Britain

"After cotton, bananas are the second most sprayed crop in the world."

Does that mean they are the third most sprayed crop in the world?

Ellyssa, London,

"If we accept the current global scientific consensus..."

I don't.

Terry Korkham (Ms), Glasgow,