Local Campaigns:

• To get improved public transport
• To get your local council to employ carbon campaigners to promote action and provide advice on reducing carbon dioxide emissions
• To get your local council to reduce its own carbon emissions
• Let your local supermarkets know that they have to reduce their carbon emissions or you won't be shopping with them.

National Campaigns:

• To get the climate change bill improved so that it requires the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that are required according to the science.
• To get the climate change bill improved by including carbon dioxide emissions from aviation and shipping.
• To stop the building of new roads and airports, and to stop the upgrading of airports and widening of roads.
• To block any changes to planning laws that make it easier to build/upgrade airports, roads and out of town shopping centres

International Campaigns:

• To push for an international agreement to be negotiated amongst all the countries of the world, not just the G8 plus a few.
• To campaign for an international agreement that requires cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that are needed according to the science.

The lack of progress in negotiating any agreement when time is rapidly running out before we lose control over whether dangerous climate change will happen is frightening. I have not really been able to understand why when the science is so clear that it has been so difficult to build a massive campaign that is impossible for the government to ignore. The campaign has to be multi-faceted incuding protests, disruptive actions, civil disobedience, and a carbon dioxide strike where we refuse to go to work for the day. The campaign so far has been so white, middle class and "reasonable" that it has achieved almost nothing. The campaigns aims have to be clear, unequivocal and demanded with absolutely clarity of purpose and action. Behaving unreasonably is now a reasonable course of action.

We must promote the contraction and convergence model for the global reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over other models. It is the only equitable model there is and does not entrench the notion that because you polluted more in the past that you can do so in the future. Why should somebody who emits 100 kilograms per year now have to make a 80% cut at the same time as somebody who emits 100 tons per year now makes an 80% cut. But the same goes for whether it is 20 tons and 10 tons. My future allowed carbon emissions should not be based on my previous carbon emissions.