Hi - this sounds like an interesting paper. Couple of questions, though.

How does it link to the Fair Shares Fair Choice initiative that I saw has been launched by Sustainability South West. The SSW one is talking about a clearly defined carbon footprint for everyone - and a programme of reducing that allowance by 30% by 2016.

Has the REN paper been prepared with some of the key organisations in the region? Without the local authorities, Assembly, RDA, CBI, Housing Corporation etc agreeing with the recommendations AND the workings out, it won't have the impact that it should have.

Not sure that environmental organisations have quite shaken off the "well meaning but woolly" label with some people. This despite the now very obvious information about climate change.

T'was ever thus.

But good on you REN for taking on an important issue.

James,

Landscape is important - especially as a resource for tourism and as part of what attracts people to live and work in a place. (Biodiversity picked up elsewhere).

As you say in earlier post, there are all sorts of natural services that we rely on and climate is just one. However, there are probably only one or two that have the potential to threaten humanity (among other species). Climate is one of those and I would hazard that topsoil loss is another.

Hence the point that Viv raised. In the great scheme, I would have to prioritise climate over views if it came to that sort of question - because of the scale of problem. My observation over last 10 years is that the 'pretty' has won out over 'limits' if we think about things like onshore wind.

A better, more honest, agreement about which landscapes are untouchable, which are precious and which are less important - would be very useful.

James