Futile gesture of carbon cuts.

Byline: rob DAVIES 

QUICK! Move away from the sea, the tide's coming in, and in and in. Those living on the Welsh coast are at risk of being washed away, or so the scientists would have you believe.

That was the gloomy message from the Wales Audit Office last week which recommended that people living in areas where the risk of tidal flooding was "unacceptably high" should be relocated away from the coast.

The sea is expected to rise around three feet or more over the next century, the report warns.

At least if people in the future do have to move away from the coast, they won't have to look out at all the legions of wind turbines set to stretch along the horizon like a "wall of steel" as opponents call it.

But clearly the builders of what looks like a semi-circular glass and steel cafe being embedded into cliffs above the beach on the approach to Abersoch aren't too concerned. It wouldn't take much of a rising sea to wash that away.

Perhaps it would be poetic justice if the advancing sea did claim some of these buildings perched on cliff edges for the benefit of rich owners - but which spoil the natural beauty of the coast for everyone else.

Personally, I feel a sense of powerlessness about global warming and its likely effects. If it really is mankind's fault we can, in theory, do something about it. But I for one, am extremely pessimistic about our chances.

OF AVIATION Haddon-Cave the Government his analysis which led to over Ministers only through analysis hope of previous, It won't be for want of trying, of course. Last week EU leaders in Brussels put an pounds 89.6bn annual price tag on what the EU must pay in order to combat global warming. The EU has set a target of reducing CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. A tougher OF ANOTHER chance for mountaineers target of 30% is based on the rest of the developed world doing the same.

a-climbing Why would son clamber without footwear They risk rescuers taxpayers But how can we truly cut carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels when the global population is soaring and set to do so for decades? There are currently around 6.7 billion people on this planet. By 2020, there will be 7.5bn; by 2030, the figure rises to 8.1bn; by 2040, 9bn.

We might cut CO2 emissions per person, but if the world population is going to rise 50% in just 30 years, what hope is there of seeing an actual reduction, particularly with the rise of China and India as economic powers? Surely, almost none.

I read somewhere that if we in Britain gave up our cars altogether, the benefit in reduced CO2 would be cancelled out by the polluting output of China within nine months.

Yes of course, every little helps but it really is very little isn't it? Here in Britain we do our bit with our fortnightly bin collections and huge ugly wheelie bins defacing our streets; towering but ineffectual wind turbines springing up everywhere and now, the low-energy lightbulb coming our way on the orders of the EU.

We feel an undeserved glow of satisfaction that we're playing our part but we know in our hearts that a world population rising by a quarter of a million a day is a disaster which will wreck everyone's best efforts.

Yet the well-meaning, oh-so-polite powers-that-be continue tinkering at the edges, seeking politically-correct solutions and ignoring the elephant in the room.

In 1798 economist Thomas Malthus pointed out the dangers a rising population posed but the chattering classes still can't or won't see it.

Maybe when the wine cellars in their seaside second homes flood will they wake up and smell the coffee - assuming there's enough power to boil the kettle.

CAPTION(S):

Whether you like them or not, the UK's wind turbines won't come close to offsetting global rises in carbon output