date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:21:36 +0000
from: Nick Brooks <nick.brooksatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Science in Parliament
to: email@example.com, Neil Adger <n.adgeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>, m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk
Simon, Neil, Mike
Our final version attached. Mike - I'm copying this to you in case you want to have a look
at it before Monday, as it needs to be sent off then and Simon is busy all day today.
I agree with Neil that we should retain the original title, as we are not focusing just on
I think we should stick with August for Blair's touchdown - the nearest I can find to
anything definitive relating to itineraries is here:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/eapnt10.htm, which suggests August.
The language may be a bit strong in the controversial passages, but there's no point in
using our opportunities to speak to politicians if we have to be worried about hurting
their feelings. While the UK government is pretty good in many respects on the environment,
the dominant policy strands undermine sustainable development - policy is not as coherent
as it could be. As you know, energy policy has recently served to undermine the growth of
renewable energy in the UK. I think it is important to criticise our government in
particular, otherwise they may think we're just talking about everyone else! However, we
should perhaps let Mike have the final say as he is the person who was originally
approached to write the article, and who has to worry about us giving the Tyndall Centre a
perhaps too radical reputation.
I've rewritten the section about mitigation and adaptation so it is somewhere between our
first take and the suggested revision, but taking account of the comments.
We're only 39 words over the 1500 word limit in this version.
Dr Nick Brooks
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Tel: +44 1603 593904
Fax: +44 1603 593901
Tyndall website: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\BrooksAdger4NB.doc"