As a member of the green community, I feel that the issue surrounding climate change and the way in which this documentary has represented the green view is deeply flawed.

I totally accept that what this documentary says about the relationship between sun spot activity and earth surface temperature is accurate. In actual fact, I have read this before, and have come to understand that CO2 emissions are just one factor in the climate change story. Another is methane - this has increased because of the industrial production of beef. Another is the amount of air pollution - the decrease of it has caused an increase in temperature because less sunlight is reflected back into space. However, sun spot activity is cited as the biggest factor in a wide variety of sources easily found by searching through Google. The BBC has also reported the EXACT content of the documentary in their report Viewpoint: The Sun and climate change

Therefore, the assertion that this is simply the 'environmental left' deliberately obfuscating the issue is as inaccurate as their assertion that its primary goal is to return to a pre-industrial way of life. I am a paid up member of the green party, and I take a keen interest mainly in green economics and environmental protection. From my experience, the biggest factor in being green is finding beauty in, respecting, and celebrating nature and our environment. Industiralised society left unchecked does not take the environment into account, and the aim of the green movement is to strike a balance between human activity and its impact on the planet as a whole but also the local communities in which we all live.

One of the fundamental tenets of the green way of life is the efficient use of natural resources. This is why environmentalists have always encouraged recycling, local shopping, organic methods of farming, and most of all, investment and participation in the activities of the local community to make it a nicer place to live. By reducing carbon emissions, you are finding more and more efficient and environmentally friendly ways of CONTINUING an industrialized society, but one where our impact on the planet is in balance with what it can provide us with. The message is that being efficient in our use of resources means that we will have more of them for longer, and if as part of that reducing CO2 emissions might make a difference to the resources of the planet in the future, then we ought to do something about it. Tied up with all of this is the possibility of running out of oil and gas. Surely burning less fossil fuel now means it will last for longer? Is that not in itself a reason to be energy efficient? If we need less of it, in the long run it will be less expensive as the demand will be lower. That's not green screeching that Keynesian economics. But even if it does turn out to be as renewable as sunlight, any market values efficiency, as it maximises growth. Why should this be any different for the economics of the environment?

Another fundamemntal part of being green is the use of ethically and environmentally sound goods and services. Sure, the amount of carbon involved is a factor in the acceptability of goods and services used, but a much bigger factor has always been the human cost. I found the notion that environmental groups are discouraging development in Africa an appalling and deeply inaccurate statement, and a deep insult against the green movement. It has always been one of the stated principles of those involved in helping developing countries that it is the development of those countries and their ability to compete on a level playing field that is essential to their survival, and as such the trade rules that govern those countries are unfair. So too are the free trade policies of world markets, as not only does it centralise wealth into the hands of a global elite, it affects communities all around the world in the same way; IT DRAINS THEIR WEALTH. This is why so many people try to buy fair trade goods and services. It is by no means the answer, but it is a small contribution and a step in the right direction to redressing the imbalance in wealth between developed and developing countries. The notion that the green movement is against building coal power stations in Africa is nonsense. It is more to do with the fact that you need to address basic issues such as sanitation, water supply and medical care first, and it is much easier to supply a small medical centre with renewable energy through the use of solar panels, batteries and a distributor, than to organise and assimilate building coal mines and a power station and an electricity grid, not to mention the issue of how people are supposed to pay for it. How can African farmers pay for electricity if they can't sell their crops for a fair price in the EU, or without the help of greedy middlemen, only interested in their bottom line than the welfare of millions of people?

The fact that climate change has been the scapegoat for wider societal changes is the responsibility of the mass media and government too scared to tell us the truth about the issues we as a society face. The real truth of this documentary is obvious - solar activity is a bigger cause of climate change than CO2 emissions, but the flagrant attack on the green movement by those involved in the so-called 'growth economy', who shudder at the idea of a world where we consume less and pay a fairer and more realistic price for things that we have sourced locally than from the other side of the planet where it is cheaper, was equally as obvious. Don't be fooled by the idea that economic growth is exponential; it isn't. It is limited by one very important factor; resources. If we use them all up then we will only result in exponential economic decline. So if you want the truth behind the green movements tacit support of CO2 emissions reduction, it is becuase it goes hand in hand with the green ethos of being mindful in what you consume, and being efficient in your consumption. By all means shoot people down in flames for wanting a sustainable world, but at least be honest in your motives for doing it. A world with less consumption means less people are spending less money, which means that less people are buying on credit and spending money they don't have, meaning shareholders and financial institutions make less profit, which means less growth, which means a slowing of the centralisation of wealth, which means a narrowing of the wealth gap, which means the rich and powerful don't get richer and more powerful. By discrediting the green movement, market forces believe they can get us to continue spending beyond our means, but the reality is that regardless of what the green movement say or do, at some point our current way of life will be financially unsustainable, and will change anyway, and right then, the issue of CO2 emissions will become totally irrelevant.